Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Alan Ross (2nd nomination)

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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Alan Ross

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He has done his best to work with us and failed in good ish faith. He is not very noteworthy, only that one case, create a redirect to it seems best. Jason Scott case His comment, I have repeatedly requested to have my bio deleted due to the way it has historically been abused for propaganda purposes and personal attacks. I don't think blocking and censoring me now is fair and it doesn't reflect the principles of fairness that Wikipedia says it stands on.Rick Alan Ross, seems to be the last resort for him. In the spirt of WP:BLP , lets end this here , delete. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Only that one case"? I guess all the work that I have done around the world that has been reported about by national and international media networks year after year for decades is somehow an illusion. Creating a redirect to the Jason Scott case, which ended in 1995-96 seems just a bit off. Excuse me, but Wikipedia at times seems like an alternate reality created by its editors for its editors and not in the interest of public education.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the article has been up for deletion before, under its previous name, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Ross (consultant), which resulted in keep
Keep, whether the person is annoying in wiki environment or not has nothing to do with the person's notability, which is clear to all extents and purposes of WP:GNG, and is ***certainly*** not limited to the Jason Scott case. I'd prefer editors with the "notability limited to Jason Scott case" bias would steer clear of the article, or start looking up reliable sources. And no, the subject's bias has no influence on the article's content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the second nomination for AfD of this article, which should be noted in the nomination and the title of the nomination (the nomination should move to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Alan Ross (2nd nomination)), and the side header to the article should list Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Ross (consultant), which passed overwhelmingly 26 Keep to 3 Delete. Notability is not temporary. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence. There is a part of me that wants to !vote delete because: the article subject has asked for it repeatedly and because no article will obviously put a stop to the never-ending headaches over the tendentiousness of the article subject as a demanding, whiny editor. He's not here for Wikipedia, he's here for his bio and online image and self-promotion. On the other hand, the subject does meet notability guidelines, albeit more in the past than the present (but, Wikipedia is not news, so...). I guess keeping is more in line with Wikipedia's purpose. Still, I'm torn because I know RAR is going to remain a pain in the ass as long as the article remains. Unless something helpful to the encyclopedia is done to keep his fingers out if the pie that is the BLP on him, that is. Which leaves me to say this: those of you saying "Keep" but refusing to do anything to keep the article subject away from article even though for years he has yet to show he's anything but a troublesome WP:SPA who is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia... You will reap what you've sown: more disruption and frustration. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well-formed, fully referenced. I don't know what the criteria would be for deletion, but "not noteworthy" just isn't the case. LaMona (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but it is not whiny, demanding, or self-promotion to expect accuracy and fair unbiased editing. It is not a solution to either censor me or delete the bio because it isn't exactly as some editors prefer it to be. I have raised questions at the Talk page about the consistent application of Wikipedia rules and fairness. That is not disruption, but rather constructive criticism. It is troublesome to see the way that some people periodically pop in to use the bio as a punitive place to bash me. But recently the bio has become more stable. My fingers in the pie is necessary to offer some balance to what has been a very messy and often nasty process of editing. I certainly don't mean to be a pain in the ass, but rather a check and meaningful frame of reference.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RAR, you said you'd go away for at least three days and not post or edit in order to get a handle on policy and guidelines. And, as I expected, you reneged on that promise just as you have previously with similar promises. Do you think we're kidding here? Please don't answer. Just fulfil your promise. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about some of your comments some more, I'm struck by the outright and sheer arrogance of them. First of all, BLPs in Wikipedia are written quite well and without the assistance of the article subject all the time. It's been that way since the first Wikipedia BLP was created. We don't need you or any article subject to help us write such bios. As far as balance, Wikipedia editors (especially those of us who have been here a while and have thousands and thousands of edits to our credit) know how to create the appropriate balance in an article based on Wikipedia guidelines. And if we ever get flummoxed, we have each other to work with in order to get it right. We don't need you be "a check" or a frame of reference, because we have reliable references available to us. That's the way it works for all BLPs, in fact. Do you honestly think we are all so inept that we can't get it right? Do you seriously think that you, someone who has said over and over again that they don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, can better edit or edit by proxy than those of us who already know policy and guidelines? If people truly do "pop in to use the bio as a punitive place to bash" you, it's taken care of. Those of us who have been answering your questions and have taken inordinate amounts of time trying to explain things to you have the article on our Watchlists, so we know when an edit occurs and will correct it if it's outside the bounds of policy. You really don't need to be here for the article to be done right nor do you need to keep a guard on the article. We're not idiots and we're not new to this. You, on the other hand, keep telling us how you don't get Wikipedia. Well, if you really don't get how things work, please stay out of the way of those who do. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I never called anyone an idiot. I think that my knowledge of the facts and reliable sources about my own life and work is meaningful and probably more informed and in-depth than most Wikipedia editors. Also, given the sorry history of my bio and all the sock puppets posting there it isn't meaningful or constructive to insult me. I will continue to read the Wikipedia links offered. I will take a break to do this and appreciate the constructive criticism and helpful suggestions offered. If you will please stop posting misleading negative rants about me there would be no need for me to respond. Let's cool off and take a break. We both have better things to do.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, cool it off and take a break? You said yesterday you would stay away. You haven't done it yet. And you want the community to trust you? You haven't yet given us any reasons to do so. From what you've demonstrated so far, your word is no good and you have proven yourself to be totally fucking disruptive. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This seems a personality conflict, and there is absolutely no place for that. The references supplied are impeccable, and numerous. The subject is notable within his field, and generally. CBS, New York Times, books, newspapers, legal journals... Forty-five refs supplied, both primary and secondary. Deleting the article because there is a WP:COI is not the solution. On the other hand, the subject of this article needs to restrict himself to the article talk page, not edit his own article, and quit irritating the VOLUNTEERS who put their time and effort into maintaining the encyclopedia. If there is something wrong, yes, we want to hear about it. That's not a license to disrupt the project. Scr★pIron^IV 14:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has over two score sources provided. Person is mentioned at least six times in NYT. (including "Ansel has his own baggage: Once a renowned expert in the vein of the cult authority Rick Alan Ross, he ..." ) . One of the easier keeps known. Collect (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily meets WP:GNG - Cwobeel (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and that nomination looks decidedly WP:POINTY. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable enough for an article. It's the article quality that's the problem. John Nagle (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and well written. Zezen (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it clearly meets our criteria for notability, but I think winkelvi's concerns that it cannot be preserved without community/administrative action regarding COI-SPAs need to be thoroughly considered and investigated. I think it might not be a bad idea if as many of the here-involved editors as possible take a look at article, the TP, and the issues in question, if they can find the time. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Absolutely meets WP:BIO. What a nonsense for AfD. STSC (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no question that the subject passes Wikipedia's notability requirements and we do not delete articles just because they are, for whatever reason, difficult to deal with. In the universe of PITA articles this one in not very bad although Mr Ross needs to understand and accept Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and their neutral application. In particular he needs to remember that reliable sources drive all content decisions and while some personal insights are helpful in applying editorial discretion we must, ultimately, stick to the sources that are available rather than self published material or self reported opinion. Jbh ^Talk 15:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.