Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans Ramzan

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. Consensus that the individual themselves does not have sufficient coverage to show notability Nosebagbear (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Ramzan

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence of any notability for this inventor / entrepreneur. Draft declined three times by three separate experienced editors but then moved to mainspace by its author. Refs are almost exclusively about an invention not about the inventor - the inventor is largely peripheral or being interviewed. Reads like paid advocacy. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, inventions typically get mainstream coverage, but that doesn't make the person who invented them notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebanderson (talk • contribs) 09:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, fails WP:GNG, primary sources, passing mentions and interviews with no WP:SIGCOV. Theroadislong (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable person failing WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON with no multiple in-depth reliable independent sources. Given sources focus on the device(s) and not the person/inventor. The few that discuss the person are mostly primary (like their university, interviews, or gallery/competition entries). That said, the CATCH device may actually be notable, but nowhere close to let them pass WP:CREATIVE. Disclaimer: saw discussion when fixing removed AfD banner. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed, paid for spam. MER-C 15:01, 13 June 2020 (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.