Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Tamraz


 * 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. Shereth 20:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Roger Tamraz

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article, which seems to be written with negative intent towards the subject, is sourced only by court documents and other primary sources. Notability not established. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
 * Keep. The report by the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the United States Senate has enough of the characteristics of a secondary source that I would say notability has been proven. --Eastmain (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But it is not a secondary source but strict WP rules.Steve Dufour (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's a few extra sources implied in the text of the article - the last body paragraph, for example, notes that he's mentioned in See No Evil. A cursory news search showed a few recent news articles, as well as a couple hundred (!) from 1997. This appears to have been a huge deal when it originally surfaced a decade ago - notability appears quite clear. The only reason for the lack of diversity in sources is simply because the Congressional report was so thorough. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 06:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems like a lot of the statements are sourced to the Congressional report, but that it doesn't actually say anything like what the statements say. Andre (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In which case, the article needs some rewriting in order to bring it back in line with its sources - which, it appears, is happening. If there were no interest in correcting the article, that'd be cause for deletion, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 14:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it free web hosting service for personal vendettas, per WP:NOT. Notability has not been adequately established. The article serves no useful purpose and is potentially detrimental to the reputation of a living person. Its slanted perspective flies in the face of WP:BLP. Have some mercy and kill it quick! Cleo123 (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree on notability, but if there's concerns about personal vendettas then WP:NPOV issues should definitely be reviewed.NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hardly a "personal vendetta". There was a Congressional investigation of his campaign contributions, for heavens' sake. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 10:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, are you trying to say that members of Congress wrote this article??? The contribution history would seem to indicate that the article's creator has dedicated nearly all of his time on Wikipedia to this article. Given the incredibly negative tone of the article, it would most certainly appear that this article may well be the product of a personal vendetta of some sort. If this person truly is notable, editors should not be having so much trouble providing secondary sources for the material.Cleo123 (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's certainly not what I said - I'm honestly not sure how you're understanding "There was a Congressional investigation of [Roger Tamraz's] campaign contributions" to be saying anything about the authorship of this article. As far as AaronXavier's contributions go, all of his edits to this page are within a single day, save one image added the following morning - this looks a lot more like insufficient use of the Preview button than a "personal vendetta" to me. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 05:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You understood my point. I simply called you on your flaming, which is very inappropriate. I stand by my remarks. Cleo123 (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources are reliable. Roger Tamraz is notable businessman. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 08:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 15:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 15:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Well-known in the international finance, politics, and espionage communities (albeit for different aspects of his career.) Article is well sourced, and expanding the references would be easy to do if needed. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There may be some peripheral notability, but this article is not NPOV and does not appropriately reference its claims. In fact, many of the references don't even relate to what they claim to cite. Andre (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is it a thriller? Delete per Andrevan Andre. --Jessika Folkerts (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious BLP issues.  Smells bad.  Seems to be full of original research and pushes a clear point of view.  Use of court records, congressional discussions, etc, as primary sources unsupported by secondary evaluation is also problematic, and is actually forbidden under BLP. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Sandstein   07:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment: Several secondary sources have been introduced after the last AfD comment. This may need further review.  Sandstein   07:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is confirmed, though the article could use some rewriting (which, by itself, is no reason to delete it). Ecoleetage (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ecoleetage. Improvement on references is definitely needed. YrPolishUncle (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep though, like others, i agree it needs improvement. Sufificently notable and sufficiently well sourced even as it is to meet blp. DGG (talk)


 * 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.