Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronn Torossian (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. (non-administrative closure) – RyanCross (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronn Torossian

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

Non-notable individual, very few verifiable sources. Despite last keep result, no new sources to establish notability have emerged. Per WP:BLP, people who are notable only for one thing (so what, he's president of a company) should not have a biographical article. -Nard 21:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 23:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's had a NYT feature story on him, in the article, and a Business Week story, presented by the nominator of the previous AfD (!) - which is no longer in the article. So he is clearly notable. The first AfD was closed as keep, can't see what has changed.John Z (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject might be notable, but the article currently does not establish notability according to WP:CREATIVE or general WP:BIO. Jeremiah (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Establishes notability by the NYT feature. "one thing" does not mean that someone notable for only one profession is not notable. The NYT story discusses many notable accomplishments and controversies. DGG (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if some of the WP:Peacock can be removed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:RS -- and there is nothing wrong with having The Jewish Daily Forward and the trade magazine PR Week as sources. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As obnoxious as his minions are, and despite the article formerly being a glorified promo for him and the company, he has been the subject of features in NYT and Businessweek. Meets WP:BIO. --Mosmof (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the profile in the New York Times along with the other reliable sourcing should be enough to provide information for a verifiable stub at the least, there is a definite case for merging into 5W Public Relations but ultimately that's an editorial decision. Guest9999 (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is an individual who has been profiled at length in The New York Times and Business Week -- among many other publications -- in articles that cover Torossian individually and in gory detail. Without any doubt whatsoever he meets WP:BIO and any other standard of notability one could ever conjure. The first AfD for Torossian was a rather bizarre affair, with an AfD created by an apparent sockpuppet and a number of participants, virulently opposed to Torossian, who advocated for deletion and have had no other involvement in Wikipedia other than related to that AfD. I'm not sure what happened to this article in the past year or so, but the current article is little more than a stub. This version from the close of the first AfD in November 2007 provides a much more comprehensive biography, supported by reliable and verifiable sources. This version from mid-July 2008 represents the peak in size for the article, and there is plenty of worthwhile material that has just been hacked out and no longer appears in the current version. I'm not sure why the Torossian article has been targeted for deletion, either before or this go around, but there can be no possible doubt that he is notable. Alansohn (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I am not going to vote here, most involved know that I began the initial article on Ronn Torossian, as I also did the 5W Public Relations article. Considering AlanSohn's comments, I would ask objective parties to look at 5W's article for similar choppy edits as Alansohn suggests happened here. I would hope that should this article survive the delete request, Wikipedians treat this article as they would all others, and not as a reflection of anyone's views on the subject here. It is also good to see some of the users who have added their thoughts on this nomination. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2008 (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.