Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Richards: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
|||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''Keep and cleanup'''. [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 01:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
===[[Ron Richards]]===
:{{la|Ron Richards}} <includeonly> — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Richards|View AfD]])</includeonly>
Non-notable teacher [[User talk:Subwayguy|<sub>'''''SUBWAY'''''</sub>guy]] 02:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - fails [[WP:BIO]]. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 03:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' He is not entirely non-notable, as evidenced in the minor scandal he caused at the school, which was reported on inside the county. He is also an author with multiple publishes. I am still looking for reviews of his work, but it is taking some time as most of his wider circulated works are pre-Internet age. Notability policy for people states that an article can be included if the topic is a "published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." -- [[User:Johnny06man|Johnny06man]] 03:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
**Please note I have made several edits on this article prior to AfD nomination, and personally know the subject of the article in question. -- [[User:Johnny06man|Johnny06man]] 03:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - per nom. [[User:Ronbo76|Ronbo76]] 12:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' but rewrite to emphasize his work as an author. I agree his work as a debate coach is trivial, but he's written or co-authored at least four novels that have all gotten customer reviews on Amazon.com (so people are still reading them). As [[User:Johnny06man|Johnny06man]] said, official reviews for books published prior to the "internet age" (these books were all 1990-1996) are not online. Doesn't mean they don't exist. It certainly needs citations to the reviews, but the article is only a few days old - I don't think this is the time to delete it. [[User:Lyrl|Lyrl]] <sup> [[User talk:Lyrl|Talk]] </sup> <sub> [[Special:Contributions/Lyrl|C]] </sub> 17:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' a re-write like you suggest seems appropriate to me [[User talk:Subwayguy|<sub>'''''SUBWAY'''''</sub>guy]] 01:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as per Lyrl. [[User:DukeOfDuchessStreet|--Duke of Duchess Street]] 00:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Keep but rewrite''' After thinking about it a bit this would be better, some notability as a author, the teaching and debate sections have to go as they are probably unverifiable. --[[User:Daniel J. Leivick|Daniel J. Leivick]] 03:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
:I would say the other sections can be verified, some of them having already been confirmed. They may be harder to find sources for, and I do not say with certainty they are important enough to include in the article, but teaching is his profession. Something of this should discussed in the article. -- [[User:Johnny06man|Johnny06man]] 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
*A friend and I are the main authors. What do you suggest we do to keep this article alive? We are former students and debaters under Ron Richards and can assure you what we write is indeed credible. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/71.114.105.77|71.114.105.77]] ([[User talk:71.114.105.77|talk]]) 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
**I would say that this is perhaps a conflict of interest as former students it is hard to be impartial. In any case his teaching style is mostly what I was referring to outside sources referencing it are a must otherwise it should be deleted. --[[User:Daniel J. Leivick|Daniel J. Leivick]] 23:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''keep'' so our newbies can edit it and learn. The main item of notability seems to have been a public argument about privacy that must have been reported in the news sources. Find them and put them in. If 10/15 is that notable a record of success as a debate coach, there shoud also be some more detailed documentation. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 02:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
:<s>*'''Delete''', fails [[WP:PROF]]... [[User:Addhoc|Addhoc]] 21:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)</s>
*'''Neutral''' per DGG. More sources are required though. [[User:Addhoc|Addhoc]] 15:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per Daniel Levick, Lyrl, &c: needs rewritten to focus on his ghastly novels. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 22:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||