Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Richards

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 Keep and cleanup. Avi 01:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Richards

Ron Richards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable teacher SUBWAYguy 02:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 03:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He is not entirely non-notable, as evidenced in the minor scandal he caused at the school, which was reported on inside the county. He is also an author with multiple publishes. I am still looking for reviews of his work, but it is taking some time as most of his wider circulated works are pre-Internet age. Notability policy for people states that an article can be included if the topic is a "published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." -- Johnny06man 03:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Please note I have made several edits on this article prior to AfD nomination, and personally know the subject of the article in question. -- Johnny06man 03:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, no sign of any independent reviews also his work as debate coach seems trivial. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Ronbo76 12:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite to emphasize his work as an author. I agree his work as a debate coach is trivial, but he's written or co-authored at least four novels that have all gotten customer reviews on Amazon.com (so people are still reading them). As Johnny06man said, official reviews for books published prior to the "internet age" (these books were all 1990-1996) are not online. Doesn't mean they don't exist. It certainly needs citations to the reviews, but the article is only a few days old - I don't think this is the time to delete it. Lyrl Talk C 17:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment a re-write like you suggest seems appropriate to me SUBWAYguy 01:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep but rewrite After thinking about it a bit this would be better, some notability as a author, the teaching and debate sections have to go as they are probably unverifiable. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say the other sections can be verified, some of them having already been confirmed. They may be harder to find sources for, and I do not say with certainty they are important enough to include in the article, but teaching is his profession. Something of this should discussed in the article. -- Johnny06man 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A friend and I are the main authors. What do you suggest we do to keep this article alive? We are former students and debaters under Ron Richards and can assure you what we write is indeed credible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.114.105.77 (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
    • I would say that this is perhaps a conflict of interest as former students it is hard to be impartial. In any case his teaching style is mostly what I was referring to outside sources referencing it are a must otherwise it should be deleted. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 'keep so our newbies can edit it and learn. The main item of notability seems to have been a public argument about privacy that must have been reported in the news sources. Find them and put them in. If 10/15 is that notable a record of success as a debate coach, there shoud also be some more detailed documentation. DGG 02:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
*Delete, fails WP:PROF... Addhoc 21:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral per DGG. More sources are required though. Addhoc 15:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Daniel Levick, Lyrl, &c: needs rewritten to focus on his ghastly novels. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:54, 14 January 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.