Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Max Ross

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 was delete. --bainer (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Max Ross

Robert Max Ross (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A losing politician. A perennially losing politician, in fact, but unlike perennial loser Bill Boaks there are no non-trivial independent sources attesting his importance or significance. Sources are blogs, trivia or 404. And there are only four of them anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Subdolous 20:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Nor has he ever done anything else of note. Unless you hold to the view that WP should cover every human on earth, this article does not belong on WP. The ed. should consider publishing a book instead, where he can include whatever he thinks personally important. DGG (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 20:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the article: "never made a significant showing in an election". Lest we think the writer is just being modest, it then goes on to give an example of an election where he got just 10 votes. I think it's safe to say most of us could do better than that just by getting our immediate family and friends to vote for us. In any case, not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I declined an A7 on this last month due to coverage over time, but I can't see anything to distinguish him from every other losing candidate in an election. — iridescent 21:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, failed to reach notability standards. Certainly can be mentioned in articles on opponents or elections if they exist. Creator left Wikipedia this spring after pushback over his creation of many non-notable bios sourced to his own unpublished research. It is unfortunate the editor has returned with no change in behavior. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Insufficient non-trivial sources. Hal peridol 23:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom et al. Bearian'sBooties 19:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per A.B. suggestion belowDelete. I wanted to find something notable, I tried. You would think that if someone runs in that many elections they would get some coverage even if they lose, something. But I can't find any other sources. Unless someone can show otherwise, there's nothing notable at all about the person.Wikidemo 22:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC). I found some sources and added one. That he wins or loses the election is besides the point. If he is a candidate and gets covered as such, that goes to notability.Wikidemo 02:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Try leaving out the middle name and searching on "Robert Ross"+Louisiana+Republican -- I got 62 Google News Archive hits for instance. --A. B. (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Without opening all 62 of them, on a skim-through it looks like all of those are just coverage of election results, which are listed in multiple papers. No-one's disputing that he stood in the election. Try a similar search on "Berony Abraham", who received a mighty 209 votes in the last UK election, (98 Ghits) to see just how meaningless the Google count is for politicians. — iridescent 02:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Note - some are about the candidacy and his stand on the issues (e.g. anti-abortion) and there are some AP and UPI articles specifically about him being a candidate. There are also multiple independent references already in the article, though not properly cited inline. Unless someone wants to check those paper sources we have to assume in good faith that the author reviewed the materials and found the citations appropriate. Wikidemo 02:59, 6 November 2007 (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.