Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott A. Jones (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 keep. John254 00:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott A. Jones

Originally considered at AFD in Dec 2006. The outcome was merge→ChaCha (search engine); however, only a couple of weeks thereafter and the immediately next edit after redirection, the action was reversed with the edit summary "It is nonsensical for a biographical page to redirect to a specific item or product." The article has been expanded since then, but complaints on Talk:Scott A. Jones led to marking the article for deletion via WP:PROD and tagging with Template:Bio-notability. The discussion on talk and actions thereafter are a de facto re-nomination for deletion, which should take place here. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and Talk:Scott A. Jones. Also possible candidate for block to prevent resurrection. Article's length and pseudo wiki-rich content are not a justification for allowing flagrant self-promotion Dick G 02:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with massive editing - The man holds patents and invented voicemail. He's notable. HOWEVER... I completely agree with Dick G that it's a sick-fest of self-promotion and should be edited to be a little less congratulatory and a little more encyclopedic. If this page is a 'KEEP', I would be willing to do the copy-editing. jddphd (talk · contribs) 03:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate waiting ;-) I just edited it. Now how's it look? jddphd (talk · contribs) 03:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and Comment useful copy edit and changes to tone but it's crying out for references/citations. As it stands - even with the neutralisation, it still reads like original research.Dick G 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete unless independent sources are found talking about him Corpx 04:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about now?

I have added a few links. The IEEE article in particular basically grounds all the biographical material. Don't know how to escape the circularity problem that he was the source of the details in the article, but between that and Forbes it feels like there might be some weight to it now. jddphd (talk · contribs) 04:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the newly added links Corpx 05:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on jddphd's dedication and work to make the article keep-worthy. spazure (contribs) 08:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes notability guidelines with new verification. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nice job sourcing; definitely seems to pass WP:BIO at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten, article definitely meets WP:BIO now. Yamaguchi先生 04:42, 17 August 2007 (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.