Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debra Ruh

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. Consensus appears to be that CaroleHenson has brought the article up to standards. Further discussion on improvements can be made at the talk page. (non-admin closure) -- Dane talk 17:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Ruh

[edit]
Debra Ruh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

View the page history for more details. Page was originally PRODded for deletion by me, which was removed. Then, 2604:2000:8055:1800:6028:2e2:c470:3c17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) tagged it for SPEEDY as G11, which was removed twice. See for yourself, but this article certainly is not in a good position to stay as the sources fail to prove its WP:NOTABILITY. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't even begun to work on this yet - I have just been using what is in the article, and haven't got to the books, scholarly articles, websites and news yet. Here is a summary from Huffington Post[1]
"Debra Ruh is an advocate for the rights of persons with disabilities and founder of a Ruh Global Communications. The firm focuses on Global Disability Inclusion, EmployAbility, ICT Accessibility, Human Rights, Social Media Marketing and implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). She has provided global leadership to governments, corporations, NGOs and DPO’s (Disability Persons Organizations) supporting research projects, DPO outreach, policy and standards initiatives with the public and private sector. Proud to work with United Nations agencies and countries to help implement the CRPD. She founded TecAccess in 2001 and merged it with another firm in 2011. TecAccess was an IT consulting firm that employed persons with disabilities and helped businesses create accessible technologies for people with disabilities. Co-Founder of www.AXSChat.com a twitter chat about accessibility and disability inclusion."
"Work featured in major mediums including CBS, CNN, PBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, INC, Publishers Weekly, Fortune Magazine, US News & World Report, America’s Best, Washington Technology, and Bloomberg Business Week."
If this can be validated and expanded upon, would you consider this trivial?--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See http://ruhglobal.com/2016/02/12/debra-ruh-newest-addition-huffington-posts-blog-team/ Is Debra Ruh affiliated with Huffington Post? --Boson (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes, she's a blogger there. She's actually really into social media, blogging and podcasts - almost all the sources though are social media, blogs or sites with the podcasts. That posting is written by Ruh / Ruh Global - If you run across a link from a secondary source, that would be great!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Weak keep - (subject to revision) on the presumption that the current improvements will continue. Some of the attention may be PR-generated, and there may have been some editing with a potential conflict of interest; so we need to be careful to keep the article neutral, but there are some longish news items (CNN, Wall Street Journal, etc.), and she gets gets quite a few mentions. And she is chair of a UN committee (though a reference may still need to be added). --Boson (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Changed. --Boson (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Boson I don't have a close connection. I got involved voting on articles for deletions because I had tagged some articles and jumped in because I know that there's a huge backlog. I've voted for a number of incredibly, incredibly weak articles with hardly any votes [2][3][4][5] - and if I run across an article I think I can save, like this one or Susie Gibson, I work on it. I worked on Allen B. Reed, but stopped about half-way when I realized it wasn't likely going to remain a viable article.
If you think this current article has some issues I can work on, let me know. For instance, I'm trying to sort out what to do with all the awards. I want to just keep the most notable ones. Probably the same thing with the boards. I do warm up to people I write about quite often, so there may need to be a tone adjustment. I'll look through it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am completely gobsmacked at what seems to be a lack of common sense and lack of understanding that the rules are principles. Why do I say that? I tried to save this article, because common sense told me that if the UN and the White House thought her work was important, it was worth looking into. And, I found that she is making a differences nationally and internationally in 104 countries in the lives of disabled people, but her work is "trivial". On the other hand, it appears, based upon results, that winning a Miss Nevada contest (there's actually quite a number of similar articles up for deletion with barely a whisper) or having a marginal career like these [6]here, here, here, here, here - or the ones I nominated Tony Boy Espinosa and Raj Kandukuri, are no problem. (Side note: It's also no problem, based upon results, if someone writes about oneself and his company as long as they spread the updates over time and don't make a nuisance of themselves, such as OSW.) I know people are going to think that I do have a close connection at this point. I truly don't. I just applied what I think is common sense. For years I've believed in the process of how things got done here, and now I'm getting disillusioned. It is seeming that attempting to save articles that may not meet letter of the guidelines, but IMO meet the spirit of guidelines is an effort in futility. It seems trying to get rid of the worst of the articles or resolve COI issues isn't a very productive exercise either.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, I am very sorry if I gave the impression that I might be referring to you. I was thinking mainly of another user, who made quite a few edits recently (in apparent ignorance of our conventions, so I would not attach any blame) and posted at the Teahouse "I've been instructed to write a post about a former boss of mine, but I'm running into a lot of trouble". When !voting to keep the article, I consciously ignored any PR activity (doing PR does not mean you are not notable!). Others here may also be active at the Teahouse, and therefore aware of the connection. --Boson (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful information, thanks. I wasn't upset about that piece of it - I was just trying to be clear because I think when there's an effort to save an article it can be by people with close connections.
I'm just generally frustrated at the moment.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I struck out a part of my comment that has since been addressed.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I probably have copyedits to make, but in terms of content additions and changes, I have finished my edits.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I found more to do. To my points above, about being able to validate/expand on these, I came back to look at how much of the following is covered by reliable, secondary sources:
  • "Debra Ruh is an advocate for the rights of persons with disabilities and founder of a Ruh Global Communications. Done
  • The firm focuses on Global Disability Inclusion, EmployAbility, ICT Accessibility, Human Rights, Social Media Marketing - could use more sources, there's so much more about TecAccess, Ruh Global could use more content and sources. Most of what is out there is in biographies for speaking engagements, work with organizations, etc.
  • and implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Done
  • She has provided global leadership to governments, corporations, NGOs and DPO’s (Disability Persons Organizations) supporting research projects, DPO outreach, policy and standards initiatives with the public and private sector.  Done
  • Proud to work with United Nations agencies and countries to help implement the CRPD.  Done
  • She founded TecAccess in 2001 and merged it with another firm in 2011.  Done
  • TecAccess was an IT consulting firm that employed persons with disabilities and helped businesses create accessible technologies for people with disabilities.  Done
  • Co-Founder of www.AXSChat.com a twitter chat about accessibility and disability inclusion." Done
  • "Work featured in major mediums including CBS, Done CNN, Done US News & World Report Done, Washington Technology, Done ABC, Done - there was also some kind of social media event with ABC that I see on their and Ruh's twitter page, but I cannot find a mainstream source for it, PBS, NBC, NPR, INC, Publishers Weekly, Fortune Magazine, America’s Best, and Bloomberg Business Week."
  • Expand upon information in this bio Done - some of the additonal sources include The Christian Science Monitor, The Wall Street Journal, and the United Nations
Still have a few more to go, it looks like--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Thanks to CaroleHenson's significant expansion, I would now support keeping the article, on the grounds of accounting for the potential WP:COIs on the talk page, especially the user (apparently) named "Debraruh (talk · contribs)". <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane talk 01:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I commend CaroleHenson for expanding this biography and adding many references to reliable sources. Well done! I expect that the article will be kept. If so, I suggest that the article needs to be pruned a bit. In my opinion, the legitimate effort to save the article has resulted in a somewhat bloated article that contains excessive detail. There is no need to mention every factoid that appears in a reliable source once notability has been established. Focus instead on the most important content. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, Thanks! Good point about the editing - I'll work on that later.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did some copy editing, removed some content, and moved some into notes in this chunk of edits. Overall, there is a reduction of 351 words in the body of the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updated diff and word count difference - moved some more to notes.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2016 (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/Debra_Ruh&oldid=1137775734"