Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hamilton Ruckman

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Hamilton Ruckman

Does not meet WP:BIO or assert notablity. Looking at the edits leaves the reader with a strong suspicion the article was created by a family member. Arbusto 01:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 02:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. · rodii · 02:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Retain. Page clearly demonstrates the importance of the individual with respect to MIT, both World Wars and the Manhattan Project. Previous comments regarding "notability" are clearly erroneous (read the page!) and the by-product of a bias against the topic (see User Arbusto's various edits of entry regarding Peter Ruckman, which he/she also seeks to have removed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.152.119.232 (talk • contribs)

• I read the article. The notability you speak of isn't self-evident, and simply asserting it doesn't make it so. I saw someone with a respectable but not distinguished career in the military, at MIT and in private industry, one of many chief engineers with one company that worked on the Manhattan project. It isn't disrespectful to say there are many like him. I understand that notability is somewhat subjective--this is just my judgment. And it's incorrect to accuse someone of bias just because he referred two related articles to AfD. Please assume good faith—we're all just doing our best to make a good encyclopedia.  ·  rodii  · 

• Of course, no one "accused" anyone of bias "just because" he referred two related articles to AfD. Try giving it another read. Dozens of individuals who were distinguished vets of WWI and II, chief engineers on the Manhattan projects, authors and instructors at educational institutions as prestigious as MIT. Sure. Very average. OK. That is your judgment. I respectfully disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.152.119.232 (talk • contribs)

• Please don't misunderstand me--it's an interesting story, and he sounds like an incredible person. The question is whether he has any larger significance that would make him noteworthy enough to belong in an encyclopedia. I'm sure we all have people we would like to celebrate. And if I'm off-base and other editors here think he deserves an article, great. That's what consensus is all about. But you're not helping your case with your sarcasm, condescension and distortions of what other people are saying (I never implied he was "average," for instance). Look, this is a big and busy place, and it is under siege by people who are trying to get their pet idea or club or hoax or newly-minted slang term or favorite teacher here--the discourse in AfD is therefore somewhat brusque, even with worthy articles. But no one is trying to be personally disrespectful; even your adversary Arbusto. I'm sorry you feel attacked, and I appreciate your remaining relatively civil. But the question is: is the article a good article for this encyclopedia?  ·  rodii  ·  05:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• I suspect that the above anon may be PSRuckman (talk · contribs), judging from the edit history. Just zis Guy you know? 20:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not every MIT grad or war vet is notable, the only link that verifies what's in the article is a personal essay by his son -- sorry, not good enough. Grandmasterka 05:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sorry, but this doesn't meet the "average professor" test, nor would it meet an "average soldier" test if there were one. --Calton | Talk 05:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, - TRDriver 08:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Retain If, for no other reason at all, because he is the historian for MIT's participation in WWI (86 hits on Google). Grandmasterka's comment that "not every MIT grad or war vet is notable" is irrelevent and sheds no light on the entry or the discussion. No one has suggested anything close to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.150.46.94 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom. --Aaron 21:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Interesting life though... --Isotope23 21:09, 28 February 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.