Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aman Verjee

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 Deville (Talk) 03:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Relist because of majority of votes here are from a sockpuppeter (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DelosHarriman).--WinHunter ^(talk) 12:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aman Verjee

not notable, appears to be written by the person himself for vanity purposes Wikiyoman 01:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the only reason this guy's going after verjee's article is he doesn't like bush. it's obvious. he also went after verjee's co-author and his publisher. duh. Jawed3 21:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I first became aware of Mr. Verjee when reading one of his books. Far from irrelevant, his ideas are so impenetrable and argued so convincingly, his political opponents are screaming with fear. Wiki's rabid mouth-foaming attacks betray any true interest in the Wikipedia community. Mars-Sekhmet 19:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The attacks using Wiki has a POV vehicle seem to get deeper and deeper. Allowing Wiki to be used as a personal vendetta tool would destroy the integrity of this website, which, in my humble opinion, is one of the greatest vehicles of freedom of speech and information on the internet. UABVulcan 13:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this vote contains no reasoning or justification. Personal attacks on people you disagree with and encomia to the Internet are no substitutes for logical argument.

• Keep user:Wikiyoman seems to be systematically going after specific people. He has made Aman Verjee, Rod D. Martin, and Eric M. Jackson candidates for deletion, as well as removing key information from the Stanford Review article, all in the same night. It just happens that all these people/things are related in multiple ways, including doing a political book together. The lack of good faith is obvious, and this all-but-completely anonymous user has some kind of gripe with these people. As to this article, Verjee is obviously notable. DelosHarriman 04:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, there is no reasoning or justification in this vote. Rather, there is an accusation of a personal agenda. I am not the person who is questioning Verjee's or Jackson's notability, but it seems plausible to me that the only personal agenda is to remove non-notable bios from wikipedia.

• Sitting on the fence user:Calton has this one listed as likely self-promotion, and if you look at its history, he is very likely right. And it used to have a picture full-screen size until I cut it down to the usual. On the other hand Googling him produces a whole load of references - but when you look at them, there's nothing much except the books in numerous booksellers' catalogues, and a self-contained cycle of mutual reference involving some of the other people user:Wikiyoman and Calton express concerns about. That's tricky: how big would a ring of people who were only ever referred to by each other have to be before they became notable? seglea 05:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Verjee would be notable if all he'd ever done was be head of strategy for PayPal. There are a lot of bios on here for lesser stuff than that.DelosHarriman 17:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Verjee is obviously notable. I understand seglea's point and it's reasonable up to a point, but these are people who've really done some important things. If they talk about each other there is a certain echo chamber thing, but that doesn't change what they've done, and plenty of other unquestionably notable people could have the same thing said about them. Samdmd 19:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Borderline delete. Based on the information to hand and the result of Gsearches, he is pretty borderliine candidate per WP:BIO per Delos. The sum of his achievements could perhaps justify his inclusion. His edited book 'Thank you mr bush' has an A-rank in the 572k; his authored book "Man of Destiny: The Fall And Rise of Arnold Schwarzenegger" is in the 2.2 millionth. No sign of multiple independent reviews of either. There appears to be a consensus view here at wiki that editorships do not confer notability. However, if it could be demonstrated that these roles have very considerable influence, that could just about swing it for me. Ohconfucius 08:38, 29 August 2006 (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.