Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rami Hanash


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Rami Hanash

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Does not appear notable and no evidence is given in the article. The fact that he has written several papers is not necessarily an indication of notability.

It was previously deleted as an expired PROD. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law,  and New York. Shellwood (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Objection: The parameters against which "notability" is measured are not clear. Is "notability" measured within parameters that include the entire general public or the whole of society, or can it be limited to a relatively significant "subset" of the public, such as the legal or medical profession? In this case, the subject is well-known within a particular, identifiable, and vocal segment of his profession, including readers of his commercially published works. On that basis, I would argue that notability has been established. Cbreeze2 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability is measured as here: WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Happy to discuss if something is unclear. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as noted before, complete non-notable vanity spam. Impressive career, sure, but nothing that meets any n criteria. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Objection: The parameters against which "notability" is measured are not clear. Is "notability" measured within parameters that include the entire general public or the whole of society, or can it be limited to a relatively significant "subset" of the public, such as the legal or medical profession? In this case, the subject is well-known within a particular, identifiable, and vocal segment of his profession, including readers of his commercially published works. On that basis, I would argue that notability has been established. Cbreeze2 (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, notability is measured by coverage in independent reliable sources. It's not rocket science. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand the criteria Wikipedia has chosen to apply, but it seems arbitrary. There are other objective measures that can be used to assess notability, and I would imagine that a commercially published author is notable, at least to a subset of the population. Cbreeze2 (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It isn't arbitrary and it's our policy. If you want to change it, AFD isn't the place to do it, you'll need to start an RFC. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not arbitrary, very well documented in fact. Please see WP:GNG for example. We've followed these directions for years now. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I believe the most recent modifications address some of the criticisms that support deletion. Notwithstanding, I continue to believe that notability within a particular profession, or another subset of the general population, should not be ignored. A commercially published author is notable to his or her readers.  In this case, the subject writes for members of the legal profession, and his work has been acknowledged by large commercial publishing companies as being as worthy of publication. That is notable. Cbreeze2 (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I can also point to the various independent organizations that have chosen to publish materials (including a book) authored by the subject as evidence of notability. These companies (identified in the "references" section of the article) are "independent reliable sources" who have invested resources in the subject to generate a financial return. They are in the same business (or perform the same function) as Wikipedia. They publish information. If not for the act of publication (by these large, independent, reliable sources), I would agree with you that the notability threshold has not been met.  In this case, however, the Bureau of National Affairs (a division of the Bloomberg Industry Group), the Environmental Law Institute, and others in the publishing industry have already said yes to notability, albeit within a specific subset of the general population. Cbreeze2 (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Appears to be a biography section for a publication of some sort. Nothing notable for our purposes. No sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.