Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Drummond

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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. The earlier opinions to delete could not have taken the intermittent cleanup into account. Sandstein 06:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Drummond

The argument made by the advocate for deletion is on the discussion page to the article (it's not here, obviously)... quote by IP 220.255.26.145 : I was searching for the wiki entry to 'incunabula' when I came across this puff piece. Wikipedia is not a tool for self-promotion. Clearly the inclusion of intimate personal details of what the author did in the 70s and 80s (traveling, sending articles to obscure journals) and a veritable CV can only be known by the author himself. Please delete.

-- deletor

quoted by Schissel | Sound the Note! 20:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this nomination (from the article's talk page) in an attempt (not a very successful one, since DumbBOT still had to finish the job) to be helpful only. I believe that the article is notable. Some assistance was sought from its subject as has happened in some similar cases. As to obscure journals, unless Incunabula itself is the reference, that's the only reference I see offhand, and it has a respectable number of google hits. I say Keep. Schissel | Sound the Note! 19:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, primary editor was Darwin Tallhouse (talk · contribs), and while there are good faith edits, there's also blatant COI such asthis and multiple insertions of a direct link to Drummond's WTC Memorial entrythus. GNA search suggests there may be other more notable persons by the name.[1] --Dhartung | Talk 19:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid 64 14:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ per
WP:NPOV, besides that no references or sources but one. If thae article gets cleaned up and is properly referenced I could change my vote Alf photoman 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep, more needs to be done to meet wiki standards Alf photoman 14:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete my feelings are as Alf states. Agree with Dhartung that the article has much COI. Would say keep if there was a better article (shorter) with references to the assertions --Kevin Murray 22:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per suggestions above, I have deleted the "Traveller" section, added several references, and made the article somewhat more neutral in tone. More could be done, but it's a start. 24.97.18.42 18:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Write The structure is unencyclopedic, but that and the other main problems can be fixed. -- Strangelv 15:53, 26 January 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.