Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Ramsey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Doc ask? 12:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bernard Ramsey
Finance-industry executive (SVP) whose big claim to fame is that he gave a bunch of money to his alma mater. That's it. Otherwise not a WP:BIO candidate. Was prodded, but tag was removed by User:Monicasdude with the reason philanthropy is notable activity, suggesting he believes writing checks to one's alam mater is notable. Calton | Talk 07:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails to assert notability. Proto||type 08:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO. —Whouk (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Aside from being identified as the largest single donor to the University of Georgia (well in excess of $20 million, with a major building and a scholarship carrying his name, he was also chairman of the executive committee at Merrill Lynch, a notable achievement in the financial field. Admittedly, this record of substantial real-world effects is hardly in the same league as the records of such Wikipedia notables as Bulbasaur, Air Force Amy, and Craphonso Thorpe, but I think it justifies his place in Wikipedia. And yes, philanthropy can be a notable activity; it's astonishing anyone thinks otherwise. Monicasdude 15:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - That argument may well be a fair one. However, bandying around accusations of bad faith is not helpful - please assume good faith. —Whouk (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Response. My comment regarding bad faith is based both on a pattern of behavior by the nominator and the deceptive summary of the article he gives. Being the largest donor in the history of a major public university (in the mid- to high-eight figure range) is not appropriately described as "gave a bunch of money to his alma mater." I also think the borderline personal attack on me in his nomination comments, setting up a straw man argument, is arguably a sign of malice and bad faith. I believe that an editor who nominates an article for deletion has an obligation to accurately fairly describe the disputed matter. I think that misrepresenting the contents of the article or the nature of its subject in order to promote its deletion should be viewed as vandalous, as a deliberate action to impair the integrity of the project, since it manifests an expectation that the article would not be deleted under the application of consensus policy and guidelines, and indicates that the nominator is attempting to avoid the guideline. Frankly, I find it unsettling that so many AfD editors find it appropriate to make caustic comments about article authors -- usually charging vanity and self-promotion, forms of bad faith editing, quite often made without any sound basis -- but find it inappropriate to call those who make such baseless comments to account. Monicasdude 16:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- My comment regarding bad faith is based both on a pattern of behavior by the nominator and the deceptive summary of the article he gives. Looks more like it's based on anger-management issues and reading comprehension problems/mind-reading delusions. Whether Ramsey donated $20 or $20 million to his university (you know, "giv[ing] a bunch of money to his alma mater"), that's not an achievement as far as I'm concerned, which is what I said. I failed -- and still fail -- to see anything he did on the way to piling up the cash for the donations he made makes him the least bit qualified under WP:BIO. There can be a difference of opinion, but that gives no call for you to, as a friend of mine puts, "make shit up" about motivations, nor to distort the English language to justify your pouting. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Quite; that Monicadude disagrees with the nomination doesn't make it bad faith by definition. I'm curious myself as to how this fellow qualifies for notability. Delete. RGTraynor 15:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Response. My comment regarding bad faith is based both on a pattern of behavior by the nominator and the deceptive summary of the article he gives. Being the largest donor in the history of a major public university (in the mid- to high-eight figure range) is not appropriately described as "gave a bunch of money to his alma mater." I also think the borderline personal attack on me in his nomination comments, setting up a straw man argument, is arguably a sign of malice and bad faith. I believe that an editor who nominates an article for deletion has an obligation to accurately fairly describe the disputed matter. I think that misrepresenting the contents of the article or the nature of its subject in order to promote its deletion should be viewed as vandalous, as a deliberate action to impair the integrity of the project, since it manifests an expectation that the article would not be deleted under the application of consensus policy and guidelines, and indicates that the nominator is attempting to avoid the guideline. Frankly, I find it unsettling that so many AfD editors find it appropriate to make caustic comments about article authors -- usually charging vanity and self-promotion, forms of bad faith editing, quite often made without any sound basis -- but find it inappropriate to call those who make such baseless comments to account. Monicasdude 16:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: This cannot be speedy kept as there were other delete votes before Monicasdude, who should know deletion policies well enough by now. Stifle 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - That argument may well be a fair one. However, bandying around accusations of bad faith is not helpful - please assume good faith. —Whouk (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per RGTraynor. Stifle 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Per WP:BIO's guideline for deceased persons (Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?), Ramsey qualifies -- his significant donations have made him an important part of the history of a major American university. He is widely recognized by anyone associated with UGA, which is a considerable number of people. Wikipedia is not paper, and as such, a person doesn't need to be a household name to be included. There are many, many notable people who should be included. Regardless of what you think of Monicasdude, can you honestly tell me that Air Force Amy belongs here but Ramsey does not? I added a stub tag to this article in the hopes someone will add more to it, but for now I'm not sure who it's hurting by not being deleted, when it clearly is verifiable and not a vanity piece. --SuperNova |T|C| 18:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC) This would the article's creator, despite the trademark "Air Force Amy" reference. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- My mobile phone, my desk calendar, and the bottle of O Olive Oil with Organic Meyer Lemons sitting in front of me are all verifiable. Doesn't mean they're getting articles. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Regardless of what you think of Monicasdude, can you honestly tell me that Air Force Amy belongs here but Ramsey does not? Bernard Ramsey is being discussed here; Air Force Amy isn't.--Calton | Talk 04:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I could make articles for a hundred different major philathropists who donated to various universities...doesn't make them deserving of an article. Accusations of bad faith will get you nowhere and are bad practice. ⇒ SWATJester
Ready Aim Fire! 19:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC) - Keep Hundreds of new articles would just be a drop in the bucket. This guy's name is going to be all over the university and people may wonder who he was. Seano1 02:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete Not important enough for wikipedia. Now if he was to give us a large sum of money though... U$er 04:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Donations are not notable per se. Sandstein 16:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep An article about someone donating money to seems ok. Anonymous anonymous 21:28, 10 April 2006 (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.
