Talk:Ron Richards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-07. The result of the discussion was Keep and cleanup.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ron Richards article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] More clean-up required

Many weasel words have been removed and the citations have all been standardized using cite templates. A Reference section has been added. More cites have been added, but even more are required so the Missing Cites tag has been added.

More work must be done if this article is not to be deleted vis-a-vis Notability. It is still under review.

— Jim Dunning  talk  : 15:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable or not?

Not much activity has occurred for this article since its AfD Discussion a couple weeks ago where a lot of effort went into defending it. Some clean-up was done today to address readability and style issues in an attempt to remedy that.

I'm undecided as to whether Ron is "notable" enough for a WP article, but here's some suggestions that may help to bring it in line with the observations made in the AfD review (a number of nomination comments were to refocus the content on Richards' writing rather than teaching or debate) —

• Rename the article to "R.W. Richards", since this seems to be his nom de plume.
• Rewrite the lead so it focuses on Richards the author, making his education efforts secondary (pun intended). Maybe something like this –

R.W. Richards is an American history and alternate history author living in northern Virginia.

Richards is noted for his three volume The Alternative History Trilogy, comprised of Brothers in Gray, a Southern Yarn and Gray Visions. The stories explore a world where Grant surrenders to Lee and the reconstruction possibilities in a post-Civil War triumphant South without slavery, with a particular emphasis on race-relations and the future of Southern blacks.

Richards is also a high school social studies teacher, notably active in debate and forensics.

• Rearrange the article sections to this order —
  • Writing
  • Teaching & debate
  • External links
  • References

• Expand the writing section with plot and theme summaries of the three books (I haven't read them so I can't help there — e.g. for A Southern Yarn it could be mentioned that Lee springs a trap on Grant on the North Anna River forcing the Union Army to surrender; the South then frees the slaves to secure its independence.). Add some graphics – this will do much to legitimize the article.
• Italicize the book titles in the Bibliography.
• Add links to the appropriate Amazon.com pages for each of the books under the External links section.

Just some thoughts . . . .

— Jim Dunning  talk  : 19:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning the clean up

I am one of the two original authors of this page. I appreciate your suggestions and corrections, and my partner and I are working on fixing the page.

A discrepancy I have with your suggestion about making his writing the primary topic is that he is arguably more notable for his debate and teaching than for his books.

Hello, (JSM?), welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to Ron Richards article. Since it looks like you're new to WP, here are a few good links:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I understand your viewpoint, but if you want to reduce the chance of the article being deleted, it's a good idea to look at WP's Notability Guidelines for the direction to take. Foremost among reasons a person might be notable are:

• The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works which meet the reliable source guidelines in all forms . . . .

In Richard's case this will mean any published reviews of his books or newspaper articles about his teaching or coaching. The challenge with the latter two is that he has to be front and center in those articles, not "just mention[ing] the person in passing." (And before you point out the newspaper article about the student essay controversy, that issue died down pretty quickly; now, if it had gone on to the Supreme Court . . . .) If "the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field," then that counts for Notability as well. I just don't think Richards meets the "enduring" element outside of his immediate environment (no insult intended, but others will point out (rightly) that there are thousands of hardworking teachers involved in extracurricular activities in Northern Virginia who are not necessarily notable).

Given that, and after looking at the AfD Discussion comments, your best bet on keeping the page intact is to use the author angle.

Let me know if I can help and sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

— Jim Dunning  talk  :  18:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)