Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Rasberry

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, at any rate not delete. Mergers can be discussed on the talk page.  Sandstein  06:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Rasberry

Tom Rasberry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Mr Rasberry is known for only one thing; as part of his job as an exterminator he came across an infestation of an ant species (or subspecies; unclear), Paratrechina species near pubens, called by the name "Crazy Rasberry ant". He rightly gets a mention in the article on the ant population, but does not deserve an article on his own per Wikipedia:BIO#People notable only for one event and WP:NOT#NEWS. I redirected his article to the ant's, but was reverted. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment He's actually known for two things: discovering the ants, and being hired by NASA to help them with their ant problem. So, "one event" doesn't apply. Zagalejo^^^ 21:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, how about, "known only for the ants"? I don't buy it as making him notable. The sources are about the ants, so NOT#NEWS still applies. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep He not only discovered the ant in 2002, but was hired in 2008 by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for his expertise on them. Hence an expert in his chosen field per WP:BIO. -- Kendrick7talk 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not like they can interview the ants; NOT#NEWS. Coverage of him is not in depth, but relates to his job of spraying pesticides on the ants, so the coverage of him is "not significant" per WP:BIO's nutshell. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm uncertain why you think an article on someone who discovered a new species six years ago would fall under that policy, which covers things like tabloids, sporting events, wedding announcements, etc. NOT#NEWS doesn't mean we can't use recent sources. Like I said, getting hired by NASA to help where other experts failed puts him over the top for me. -- Kendrick7talk 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Phlegm Rooster.Elan26 (talk)Elan26 —Preceding comment was added at 22:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a news website. Article cites a date that does not yet exist. Stifle (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmmm Rasberry, we have an ant problem: Exterminator saves NASA from crazy ants does seem to have tomorrow's date. But hardly relevant, you are misunderstanding WP:NOT#NEWS, it doesn't say you can't use recently published sources. -- Kendrick7talk 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Everybody is clear on the facts; the dude noticed these crazy ants, and he was hired to kill them. People at TAMU think they are invasive. My argument is that's not enough. Some people disagree here, and that's fine. I'm not saying that he can't get mentioned on the ant page. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Ahem the facts as I see them: the dude discovers a new species of ants, devotes years of his life to their study, and saves the American space program from destruction. Seems enough to me. -- Kendrick7talk 22:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
          • It's not even certain it is a new species, and "saving the American space program" is an overstatement. Just let other people weigh in. The guy's contibution can be covered in the article on the ants, the articles completely duplicate the same info. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Dismissing him as just some random guy hired to kill some bugs is an understatement. I would again ask that you notify the user who created the article of the AfD, if for no other reason than WP:BITE. -- Kendrick7talk 23:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
            • If it can be merged to another article, then we don't need deletion tools. It seems like you just brought this article here because your redirect wouldn't stick. Zagalejo^^^ 23:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there some reason this has to be nominated when it's so new? And Zagalejo is right, if someone reverts your change to a redirect, AfDing it isn't the answer, it's a content dispute. Really- threating to delete the article if it's reverted, the first time you redirect it? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Or, I'm prescient. The reason the article is new is that the AP ran a story on the ants which got wide distribution. I found a newly created article on Paratrechina pubens and as fast as I could made redirects. Somebody rightly moved the article to Paratrechina species near pubens, but that left P. pubens as a redirect. I then built an article for them, because they might be a different species. So now we have three articles that say pretty much the same thing. Whenever something splashes on Yahoo's front page or wherever, well intentioned editors create articles for it. Some editors are more human-oriented than others, but I'll say it again; Rasberry's story is 100% tied to these ants, but the story of the ants is not 100% tied to him. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Uncertain lets see what more there is. DGG (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge I found the article searching for info on raspberry ants, and found it informative. A good compromise might be to merge it with the Rasberry ant article and then redirect, as he seems to be closely identified with the species, and vice versa. Syd (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, he is notable. So are his ants! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep — The New York Times refers to him as the discoverer of the ants, and this article seems to lean toward the fact that they are a unique species. [1] JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Why not create an article on Jason Meyers, the graduate student at TAMU who studies the ants, and is mentioned in those articles too? He's given them their provisional name. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The article as it stands is paltry and deletion worthy. However, if it could be established that Raspberrry discovered tha ants in the sens that he recognized that they were different form other ants and took the initiative to bring the possibility of their being a new species to the scientific community, and if they are recognized as a unique apecies or subspecies , I would agree that he is worthy of an article. Or, for that matter, if he becomes a celebrity for it, if, of rexample, he gets gigs to do TV commercials fo rexterminating companies or be the guest speaker at exterminating conventions on the gorunds that he is a celebrity exterminator-cum-discoverer-of-new-species.Elan26 (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26
  • Merge per Syd. Sure the ants are notable, but his notability is completely based on theirs; nothing in his article which doesn't belong in theirs, is there? Cheers, Lindsay 07:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep if Elan26 removes the delete opinion. JeremyMcCracken's diff persuades me that this is a bad-faith nomination. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The man discovered a new species, for crying out loud. Plus, there's enough sourcing to justify his own article. --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • There are over one million species of insects, so I don't see discovering what might be a species so important. Thank's for the AGF comment, though. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable scientific discovery strongly suggests notability of the lead researcher participating in the discovery. The article as it stands now looks like crap and could use some expansion, but that's an argument for improvement, not deletion. Celarnor Talk to me 21:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The article was rewritten to emphasize Tom Rasberry as much as possible given the sourcing, and de-emphasize the ants and the work of the academics who also contributed to the ant infestation's discovery, tentative classification and control measures. If one searches around Wikipedia a bit, one will find that there are very few (or none, hard to say) articles on people who discovered just one species (which this population may or may not be). Also, fire ants get into electrical boxes too, just FYI. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I think it's a bit much to call this article "crap". It's sourced, and it's reasonably well-written, at least compared to many other articles. It's as good a stub as any. Zagalejo^^^ 04:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Multiple reliable and independent sources have substantial coverage of him as the discoveror and nemesis of a new and annoying species of insects. Satisfies WP:N and WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Paratrechina species near pubens but keep the article history. He is known for only one thing and a redirect is better for the encyclopedia than a separate short article. There is no reason to delete the history. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:12, 19 May 2008 (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.