Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Ross (publisher)

Add links
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Ross (publisher)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Bob Ross (publisher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Redirect to Bay Area Reporter. KidAd talk 06:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Gleeanon 11:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With tons more available. Gleeanon 10:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just dump like 20 search hits and cry notable. I'm not saying "no" here yet, but the couple of these I checked at random are passing mentions or more about the publishing business than Ross. WP:THREE offers some good advice here. Show us the 3 best (and maybe even throw in a couple more for good measure if they're really worth it). But this is the AFD equivalent of WP:NOTEBOMB. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are sources fully appropriate for use on the article. I vetted them and despite your aspersions, I’m not just crying anything.
As for three, the two obituaries, and the history of LGBTQ activism and culture in Out in the Castro: Desire, Promise, Activism should do quite nicely. Gleeanon 14:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, some of these are clearly junk sources that do nothing to establish notability. Source dumps like this are more harmful than helpful. Just because someone is mentioned somewhere, it doesn't matter. You've now mentioned a few that you think are best, but which ones specifically? I'm really trying to help out here, and there are no aspersions. It's just a matter of what's useful in a discussion like this. Also, please leave the collapse in place. It's extremely disruptive to the flow of the discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, that source list is AWESOME. And he just gave you three sources. sheesh. -- GreenC 14:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if I didn't have to go hunting through to see which he's talking about, but yes, the obits at least look good. But the lumping in of bad sources among the good isn't helpful. A lot of these most definitely are passing mentions only. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of those is bad, all can be used to add content on the article. Gleeanon 14:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Picking one at radom, this doesn't even mention Ross. It does mention the Ross foundation, but that's different. And the mention is of the briefest variety. This cannot be used to establish notability, and your continued insistence to the contrary is dishonest. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Bob Ross Foundation, obviously named after the subject, is a subsection of this bio and part of his legacy. From that source is

Yamashita now has an 80 percent stake in the company; the Bob Ross Foundation retains its 20 percent collateral shares. The foundation, named after the paper’s founding publisher, had to divest itself of the majority of its ownership interest in the paper four years ago during the restructuring.

This is perfectly appropriate content and the source adds to his GNG notability. It is dishonest, and disruptive to claim otherwise. Gleeanon 15:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The non-profit is discussed in the biography, it can be used in the article ("These are sources fully appropriate for use on the article"). -- GreenC 15:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The couple detailed obits in major papers are probably enough here. It would have been helpful to simply have led with those and not send us on a wild goose chase through a bunch of bad sources. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, none of those sources is bad, despite your ABF that they are. It’s dishonest and beneath collegial editing. Gleeanon 15:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the sources are not helpful for establishing notability, being merely passing mentions. There's nothing uncollegial about stressing this point. We need in-depth coverage in sources to establish notability. As I said, I think the obits push just over the line here, but the rest that I checked don't. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s simply untrue. GNG is about a breadth of coverage which can be met with numerous sources. All of these fulfilled the GNG concern. Gleeanon 15:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Also sources Out in the Castro: Desire, Promise, Activism (2002), Gay Bathhouses and Public Health Policy (2013), Fit to Serve (2011), and The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk (2008). Right cite (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The person who has been the most critical of the article is Deacon Vorbis, and they voted Weak Keep. I'm not sure why folks are still trying to argue with DV about it. :) We don't need to keep fighting; everyone who's posted so far thinks that the sources meet GNG (weakly or strongly). Love wins. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that happens all the time in AfD discussions; it's not that serious. You don't need to defend your honor. If anybody posts more than three times in an AfD discussion, it usually means they have a weak case. It's much more effective to just post your argument, and then step away, so that other people get a chance to look at the sources, and make their own decision. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is deletion. What happens after is sometimes resolved during the AfD itself. Two step process. -- GreenC 23:40, 15 October 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bob_Ross_(publisher)&oldid=1177658229"