Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravi Singh (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. J04n(talk page) 11:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ravi Singh
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

AFD 1 closed as delete after arguments about the promotional tone of this article but this was overturned at DRV because of a double vote. Although there is an argument that he meets GNG, DGG raised issues around the use of sources in AFD 1 that seem meritorious and I would question whether the election related sources count per WP:POLITICIAN given his failure to be elected Spartaz Humbug! 01:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Cameron11598  (Converse) 02:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  Cameron11598  (Converse) 02:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Cameron11598  (Converse) 02:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete change to Neutral. While I have nothing but respect for Mr. Singh's accomplishments, he does not meet WP:GNG by any means.  There are really no usable third-party, reliable sources that demonstrate widespread coverage of his leadership or political activities.  The ones cited in the article do not really establish significant coverage.   dci  &#124;  TALK   03:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. He seems like an inspirational and admirable person. He's an up-and-coming figure and perhaps in a few years time, supporting his notability per WP:Notability (people) will be possible, but it doesn't seem to be the case as of right now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete changed to Weak delete because of the additional sourcing. Everything else I continue to maintain: this is promotion, not an encyclopedia article.    DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)    The references do not support the material; the exaggeration implied by them makes this article too promotional to be kept. "Outstanding 50 Asian Americans in Business" is not a notable award. Being recognized as a "rising star" translates as "not yet notable." I see no evidence that he is a pioneer in the use of electronic campaigning, except for his own assertions. The example that he was widely quoted by the media shows him as one of several figures quoted, not as the main topic or even most prominent person cited. Similarly for the cover story in USA Weekend--it may be a cover story, but it wasn't about him. He has not been a "part time professor," a title that does not exist, he has been an adjunct instructor at 2 community colleges. The claims rely mostly on his own campaign statements. He might technically meet 2RS=N, but only if we make an extremely broad interpretation of substantial coverage and reliable sources.  When he becomes  notable, the article needs to be started over, with only those facts which have been reliably reported by sources not merely copying his PR . By our usual rules for failed legislative candidates, he's not notable. Sustaining this article means changing from reliable sources show notability, to any sort of sources however promotional show notability. The concept of notability is valuable because it protects against promotionalism.  I will say, though, that I greatly appreciate the portrait he used--it is a great improvement over what there is available for  most politicians or businessmen.   DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I just saw that this was relisted or I would have come here sooner to clean up the article. Thank you for the comments above and I hope that the information I enter here will allow everyone who voted for delete to reconsider their vote. First, I went into the article and cleaned up everything that was contested in this AFD as well as the AFD before it was relisted. I do not see the nominator back here to vote delete, but I did make sure to address as many of his/her concerns that I remember. I removed all statements that were contested such as the information about the cloud, the first turban wearing student body president, etc. This information does not go towards his notability anyways, and after re-reading the article I see how it is misleading to readers which is something that is NOT good for an encyclopedia.
 * Regarding notability, there is plenty of information in the article about his political career, but his notability does not necessarily come from him being a “politician.” It is partially from his “political career” and not just his campaign that he lost. He WOULD fail notability guidelines for politicians, but he would definitely meet general notability guidelines. He would meet “any biography” as he is widely recognized for his contributions to the field of politics, including the legislation that was sparked as part of him attending military academy with a head dress, being the first Asian-American to run for the position he did in Illinois, and his company being a leader (if not “thee”) online election campaign company.
 * If you look at the sources, I feel that there are significant and reliable sources to support his notability. There are some self-published sources which are find in a biography of a living person (to support other content). The most notable references I have outlined below. This does not mean that I feel that these are the ONLY ones that should be considered, but want to keep this comment the length of a book, and not necessarily a novel.
 * Daily Herald (Who is Candidate Ravi Singh) – This is more of a regional paper but is significant coverage of him and is also a reliable source.
 * USA Weekend (Year of the Net) – This article was contested as being significant coverage. The article was about voting and politics on the internet. He was 1 of 5 people featured in the article. Although the article was not 100% about him, it is more than just a passing mention and USA Weekend is more than a reliable source.
 * India Abroad (A Turbaned Ravi Singh Pens His American Story) – This is a good story about him. It is not a press release or his own promotional copy. If that was the case, you would see it reprinted as a press release or attributed as such.
 * Thanks for the comment about the image. I think it looks good as well, and the comment about the improvement reminds me of the old article that was deleted after a Prod. If you compare the current article to the older article, you will see that the article in its current form is a substantial improvement. The old article was basically a PR piece about Electionmall and was NOT a biography. It was more of a look at the company and this guy just happens to be the founder. A biography can include information about the person’s career, companies, etc., but should not be about them. This is also the reason why I just edited and cut down the Electionmall section to 2 sentences. I am not sure that the company would meet notability for its own article. If it did, I would suggest it be created and add the information to that article. If you can access the old article, I would request that you compare the two so that you can see that I have tried to focus the current article on HIM and not on his company like the one that was prodded.
 * The previous AFD contained 2 keep votes in addition to mine. While that does not matter in the current AFD discussion, it does show that there is interest in keeping this article. Even DGG states that he may “technically meet 2RS=N” (which after seeing comments at the request for undeletion, DGG is a pretty respected member of the Wikipedia community) and I believe that the current cleanup of the article is closer to what DGG is stating by “with only those facts which have been reliably reported by sources not merely copying his PR.” Correct me if I am wrong but hopefully this is closer to what you were saying in your comment above. Thank you for reading this lengthy rant and I appreciate everyone’s consideration and reconsideration for keeping this article.--Plainscallops (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your arguments caused me to go and have another look at the article, and I see what you mean. I think that Singh can likely pass general notability guidelines if, and only if, we can narrow down the source pool to third-party references from reliable sources, which give him significant coverage.  Given your commentary, this appears possible, so I have changed my vote to neutral.   dci  &#124;  TALK   00:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep Plainscallops has done good work improving the article and finding sources. It's not going to be a GA anytime soon, but there's definitely enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Some of the promotional tone remains, but we can work on that. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep given new sources. – SJ +  02:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep In light of improvements made and sources added since the afd nomination was made. Satifies WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2013 (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.