Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Ambrose

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 delete.--Ezeu 22:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Ambrose

Article and author have same name; does not appear to meet WP:BIO, deprodded by anonymous user JChap 20:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Further note: Anonymous User:68.67.155.47 added the following:
"He is known as an innovative and creative artist with a wide range of looks, styles, and experience in the art of set design, with over 25 years of professional experience."
at 22:27, 30 May 2006 (after editors informed subject that Wikipedia was neutral and you couldn't edit an article about yourself). Anonymous User:68.67.155.47 has identified himself as Roger Ambrose on User_talk:Batman2005. Strike my tentative support below and delete with extreme prejudice . --JChap 23:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC) OK. After giving this one a little thought, I've concluded that the subject's behavior on this site has no bearing on whether the subject is notable enough for inclusion on this site and am changing my vote to weak keep as this seems to (barely) meet WP:BIO. --JChap 23:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Article was deleted last week by admins after being ruled a nn/vanity page. User "Roger Ambrose" (clearly the subject of the article himself) then re-posted it. This entry meets every criteria of being a vanity article and should be permanently removed and the user banned. Cuthbert11 29 May, 2006
So we have a clash between policies. The fact that he was fast in recreating a deleted page (itself grounds for a speedy deletion) bothers me. The fact that this is vanity, itself grounds for deletion, bothers me. But Roger C. Ambrose is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (it should be disambiguated from two actors named Roger Ambrose). So how do we split this baby? Move this to Roger C. Ambrose (now a redirect page), make Roger Ambrose a disambiguation page, and state in no uncertain terms that such autobiographies are not permitted on Wikipedia. The advertising must be eliminated, too - and the awards section and everything with his web site address must go. B.Wind 21:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

- :::The tone of this article also clearly demonstrates why, while not forbidden, autobiography is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. An article written by a third party would not read like this. Fan1967 21:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Userfy and let someone else (re)write the article in a non-hagiographical manner. Sandstein 21:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy and rewrite by someone else per Sandstein. It needs removal of the promotional tone, the multiple self-links, and the excessive CV detail in relation to the notability. Tearlach 01:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please review the revised wording of this article and the removal of multiple self-links put forth for discussion and editorial review. Could this fit your requirements and meet your needs? R.Ambrose
  • Userfy and rewrite by someone else per Sandstein. The changes certainly help, but I'm concerned that the article may be too flowery on the whole to salvage. I've always been a bit confused abot the amount of trust we're supposed to place on the information people who write their own articles add. At this point, Mr. Ambrose, I would recommend regardless of the outcome of this review that you collect as many independent sources as you can find for the article; an article based on reliable and verifiable sources will create a lot less of a fuss. --Maxamegalon2000 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Maxamegalon2000, As I follow the discussion and arguements back and forth, I am confused by your advise to me here to collect as many independent sources as I can find for this article. If I am hearing several other editors on this, even if I did this I am not allowed to be involved in the article. This needs clarification. Additionally on the Bob Fink article/discussion I see that editors frown on even close "associates" from being involved. I want to play by the rules and get along here but as a newbie I am at a loss as to the "yes" and/or "no" of this all. Roger ambrose 01:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment: Okay, I originally closed this AfD early as a G4; however, after further reading of statements here, on the article's talk page, and on the article itself, I find it inappropriate to close the discussion early and have reopened it to run its course. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I respect your vote to delete, but breaking those guidelines aren't reasons for deletion. They are reasons for clean up and reasons to review an article, but simply containing original research, unverified statements and things that aren't verifiable aren't causes for deleting whole articles. Especially when one can independently verify that the subject has achieved some note in his particular field. Batman2005 15:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's the whole problem. One cannot "independently verify that the subject has achieved some note in his particular field." Indeed, I have independently verified that he has not achieved note in his particular field, yet you have chosen to reject my personal research as "unverifiable." So where is the verification for your so-called "independent" research, Batman? Cuthbert11 3 June 2006
NOTE Cuthbert11 you have not verified anything, you cannot call a friend up (which you probably never did anyway) and say "well my friend says this..." that's non-verifiable. The listing on IMDB, while only a listing, indicates that this person has been active in a particular field for 25+ years, and has (through two emmy awards) achieved notability for it. I wonder why your only edits from the username of "Cuthbert11" are to this page? Who are you a sockpuppet of? Batman2005 15:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • According to Cuthbert11 above, the article was deleted as a nn/vanity page and swiftly reposted again. Swiftly recreating a deleted page is grounds for speedy deletion. However there is a conflict in the guidlines, since the subject's notability is sufficient to deserve an article. Mr Ambrose hasn't said why he so badly wants his name to appear in Wikipedia's electronic ink (and there is frankly no reason why he should have to), but someone apparently quickly recreating a vanity-style article on themselves like this disturbs me. Perhaps this has tainted my judgement in deciding which policy to apply, but I feel much more comfortable selecting the one labelled "delete". Deleting the page is not "final", it simply provides the opportunity for someone to rewrite it from a clean slate using published sources without having to concern themselves with the baggage in the existing article. Jll 16:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that this needs a complete rewrite, without all the images. The montages are a copyright nightmare and provide no enyclopedic benefit, and the picture of Ambrose receiving the awards makes the neutrality of the article laughable at best. --Hetar 22:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This AfD previously contained a mass of essays and lengthy discussions, which I have now moved to the talk page for the sake of clarity. With all of that text here it was next to impossible to identify any shred of consensus, and I felt that moving it was necessary. If you feel your comments were moved erroneously, feel free to move them back, but please try to avoid letting this AfD turn into a collection of incomprehensible persuasive essays agein. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Roger Ambrose won an Academy Award for his work; consequently, I think he counts as notable. I also think that this info should be in the very first sentence. DS 02:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Point of clarification, not Academy Award, Emmy Award. Roger ambrose 02:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thousands- perhaps tens of thousands- of people have won Emmy Awards throughout history. That is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Cuthbert11 3 June 2006
NOTE Cuthbert11 only edits this page, it's probable that he's a sockpuppet of another user also pushing a delete of this page. Batman2005 15:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep after rewrite to encyclopedic standard. Moriori 03:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Userfy flip a coin on notability - I'm assuming that the "rca" that created the bio on IMDB is actually Roger ambrose himself, so I'm not seeing any non-self-generated sources of information out there. That's not a ringing endorsement for notability and it means that creating a verifiable article is going to be very difficult. At the very least, I agree with those above that the article should be userfied and if it is to exist, it needs to be created by someone unrelated. BigDT 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe there should be an article on Roger Ambrose, but as it stands now, the article is too flawed to remain without a major rewrite by a seasoned editor. 68.184.209.190 04:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
A problem is that some AfD are often markedly improved after being listed, but people obviously vote on the listed version. Maybe that's why you didn't give a Keep or a Delete or even a Neutral? I'm inclined to improve this article because I think it has the makings. But I'm not going to do so, because the consensus might be deletion and it will be a waste of effort for me. This is yet another case of an article that could have benefited from Cleanup being sent straight to AfD. Moriori 06:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
If you want to improve it, there's nothing stopping you from doing so. Deletion by AFD isn't a bar against creating a new article on the same topic. This article as it is right now is useless, but you can copy it to your userspace, work on it there, and resubmit it once you feel it would pass an AFD. Honestly, though, I am not seeing any non-self-generated information out there, so I'm not sure how easy it would be for anyone to write a good article on the subject. BigDT 15:52, 5 June 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.