Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Rose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, which defaults to Keep. Although there were far more keeps than deletes in total, many were new users. Excluding them, the number of keep and delete votes were quite even. Friday (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Rose

Keep..his books are interesting to the open minded! Gerb

not notable and self-publicising (see sales info) Lincolnite 18:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

  • delete, not quite speedy material, but definitely not notable enough for wp. — brighterorange (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • weak delete now that there appears to be a maintainer jumping to fix this, I am willing to be convinced ontherwise. Can someone find some kind of objective evidence (like number of followers, etc.) that he is notable? I must admit a certain bias against enlightened "new age" thinkers, who seem to be a dime a dozen, but I'm happy to vote to keep anyone who is clearly notable. — brighterorange (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll work on NPOVing the article also. --goethean ॐ 19:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, but NPOV is not the only problem here, there is the question of whether this guy is important outside a small circle of fans. I am leaning towards an answer of "no," but willing to be convinced otherwise. — brighterorange (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is the best google search that I can come up with to gauge the notability of this particular Richard Rose. --goethean ॐ 18:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of notability. Comment: FWIW, I searched Amazon for "Richard Rose", and I believe there's more than one author by that name. However the first two books listed were by this guy, so it's entirely possible he's notable as an author. Current article content is bad, yes, but if the subject is notable I'd rather see it fixed than deleted. Friday (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Rewrite: Not notable. Possible self promotion. — Cory Maylett 17:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • After being contacted via e-mail by someone urging me to change my vote, I looked into Richard Rose a little more. The evidence I dug up indicates that he was a legitimate philosopher, spiritual leader and author who managed to attract a significant group of followers and admirers. So from that standpoint, he does seem notable. However, the article is written more like a tribute from one of his disciples than a non-biased statement of simple, straight-forward fact. I'd suggest that someone with an objective viewpoint rewrite and condense the text into something more suitable for a non-biased encyclopedia. — C Maylett 16:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • process question Does the piece need to be rewritten before the 5 day period expires? I'm not aware how quickly the author can respond. Sharnish 17:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
        • No. In fact, you should wait to make any major changes until after the voting process is finished so that we are all voting on the same thing. --goethean ॐ 18:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I know several people who have been impressed by his book. In my circle, he is notable. Promotional material should be removed from article. --goethean ॐ 18:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Please note: These sockpuppets are not mine. --goethean ॐ 14:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The material in the external links confirms that this man lectured at universities throughout the USA. Rose's books and poems are worthy of distinction. philco2 02:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Notability is a function of what circle you troll around in. If the reference to sales material is what is offensive then cut that part out. For those that troll around in esoteric enlightenment circles, Rose is as notable as Merrell-Wolff. --Algebraicring 22:27 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • This is Algebraicring's first contribution to Wikipedia. Welcome to Wikipedia, Algebraicring. --goethean ॐ 14:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Please note: Thanks for noticing!!! I feel so loved now! Oh wait, you're just making sure that you're not taken down in the "bad image" of having a lot of people come to the defense of this article. Yep that image does indeed look bad. Hopefully the peple in charge can ignore perceptions and decide whether or not it would be beneficial to the public at large to have a wikipedia article on the man. Would that require looking into the man, or do the deciders make up their minds based on what they already know? Algebraicring 20:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
        • The administrators count the (non-sockpuppet) votes. If there is consensus to delete, they delete. If there is no consensus, article is kept. --goethean ॐ 15:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I tip my sock to you for I am nothing more than a puppet. I just want to say thanks for all the work you're putting in here. --Algebraicring 23:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The presence of the content here is valuable to researchers; the material is profound and is non-sectarian; the author might not be widely known to the public but there is substantial under-the-radar interest in his work. Self-promotion is not an issue as the author devoted his life tirelessly for decades on a strict non-profit basis. The google search listed above also references the title of a book about the author, hence it appears promotional. Here's a wider search: [1] sharnish 23:59 20 September 2005

**This is Sharnish's second contribution to Wikipedia. Welcome to Wikipedia, Sharnish. --goethean ॐ 14:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC) Sharnish does not appear to be a sockpuppet. --goethean ॐ 22:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - The author was one of the better known "non-academic" Advaita Vedanta/Nondual philosophers from America in the last 30 years. However I would vote to remove the promotional aspects in the article.--Saltysage 12:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • This is Saltysage's first contribution to Wikipedia. Welcome to Wikipedia, Saltysage. --goethean ॐ 14:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable and it looks like vanity too. --Neigel von Teighen 15:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Please see my WP talk page [2]) for further information that might help change your mind. Thanks Sharnish 16:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Vanity? The guy's dead! --goethean ॐ 16:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I very much disagree with the "you should wait to make any major changes until after the voting process is finished so that we are all voting on the same thing" from above. Remember, our goal here is to make an encyclopedia, not to rigidly follow some exact process. If this article can be improved to the point where people don't think it needs deleted anymore, that's a perfectly acceptable outcome. Friday (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • sounds good. --goethean ॐ 15:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. --fvw* 00:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT A re-write is currently underway, please stand by. Thank you.Steve Harnish 15:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments welcome on the re-write. Thanks to those who participated.Steve Harnish 22:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He seems like an interesting guy, the article is informative (if a tad hagiographic in style, but that can be fixed) and in view of his having a number of published essays and several books, and the fact that he has a small but loyal following, he is certainly notable.
  • Comment: the academic quality of this page can be enhanced by including references from the relevant books, essays, and weblinks as footnotes in the body of the write up. Also the Publications should, if books, have the year and publisher, and if essays, the journal issue no., year, and page numbers in which they appear M Alan Kazlev 01:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Request: Would someone from the TAT Foundation be willing to provide the publication dates? Thanks. The quotations would be difficult to footnote, as they are mostly often-repeated phrases from Rose's personal vocabulary. All the material was originally self-published via the TAT Foundation. By the way, there remain many unpublished works and transcriptions of lectures, transcribed by volunteers (as usual). "Hagiographic" - what a great word! Steve Harnish 05:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'm officially changing my opinion to keep, after the rewrite. I'm not saying the article is perfect, but to me the subject looks significant. Yeah, it's hagiographic here and there (I had to look that one up, thanks), but as pointed out, this can be fixed. While not very famous, as authors go, to me the intro paragraph gives me sufficient info about this guy to consider him significant. Friday (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ··gracefool |☺ 18:06, 25 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.