Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Rammond

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. Cirt (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rammond

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:BIO, unreferenced, zero Google News hits, no coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any good sources for this. This looks like a vanity page. Why there is so much about where he took his GSCEs and A levels is beyond me. If there are some reliable sources added then this could be a keep, but as it stands this is a delete DRosin (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This subject did win verifiable awards, which could be checked with british.co.uk and britishinsurance.com. Would it be acceptable to contact them. It is probably noteworthy to cover a 7 year period of schooling but I agree it may look like vanity and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broco75 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All material in an article needs to be verifiable: can you supply verifiable sources from one of these sites? Google site search doesn't turn up a single hit for "Rammond" on either site. MuffledThud (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BritishInsurance.com/markrammond.html exists but has not been indexed by Google; Nationwide.co.uk/intheknow is defunct but in the Google cache. The link between Rammond and the awards is now clear. Have added what makes British Insurance noteworthy also. Still learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broco75 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that the sources given that actually mention Rammond are WP:PRIMARY sources: can you please supply WP:SECONDARY sources? Per WP:BIO, has he been interviewed by a relevant trade publication, or has he been the subject of published secondary source material by a WP:RELIABLE third party which is independent of Rammond, his company or partner companies? The secondary sources currently in the article all appear to discuss only Rammond's company or colleagues, so as it stands his notability has not yet been shown. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @228 · 04:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After going through all of the references listed in the article, they are either primary sourced or don't discuss the subject at all. None of the assertions of notability in the article can be sourced, and even if they could be, subject does not appear to be notable. gHits yield nothing beyond the normal web presence, gNews yields zero hits. Vulture19 (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Mark Rammond

zproxy.org