Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice A. Ramirez

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. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maurice A. Ramirez

Maurice A. Ramirez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

An article about a medical doctor with other certifications and qualifications. The only source is a autobiographical book written by the subject of the article and the subject seems to have little or no nobility. Clamster 03:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom, and per WP:BIO, WP:SELFPUB. Cirt (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC).

The creator of this page added a comment to the talk page of this page and I have moved it below. Clamster 03:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional References being added. Maurice A. Ramirez is notable as the founder of the American Board of Disaster Medicine, an organization created in response to national and international calls for leadership in the medical response to disasters such as hurricane Katrina and the Indonesian tsunami. Maryandgreg (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment An article about him involved with Katrina A whole bunch of articles he's written about disaster prep Third party sources seems to be scarce though. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The updated references list 10 third party sources including USA Today and Entrepeneur Magazine. The additional references are primarily thrid party verified reporting of data that would in theory be provided by the subject. Reviewing other biographies, the number of references is commencerate and the impact of the subject on the national and international stage justifies the article. Maryandgreg (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There are certainly now enough references, & I suspect there are a few more to be found also. The tone needs adjusting to make it more objective. DGG (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• weak keep lets be optimistic that the article does develop Victuallers (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, there are some pretty strong claims to notability, with references to back it up. Surely it needs clean-up and in-line cites, but there is definitely enough there. I have re-written the lead to assert the notability there, and done some minor clean-up. Pastordavid (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG and others; the tone is promotional but there's something worthy here, looks like. --Lockley (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2007 (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.