Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Ruffini

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The result was Withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) pbp 13:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Ruffini

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

No reliable secondary sources on this subject except for passing mention. No indication of notability aside from primary sources written by the subject which indicates he was "named a Rising Star in American politics by Campaigns & Elections magazine in 2008" and that Washingtonian Magazine "named him to its list of Tech Titans for 2011". The self-published source accurately claims that The Atlantic said he was "poised to become one of the most influential Republican political strategists of his generation", but that doesn't change the fact that there is little to nothing about this subject in the literature. If Ruffini is indeed notable as both a Republican strategist and the webmaster for President Bush's 2004 campaign, I would expect to find good sources on that subject. All I've found is passing mention. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn due to sources found by Milowent and Northamerica1000. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep - per this substantial coverage and this insubstantial mention, as well as this New York Times article and this New York Times blog, as well as Salon, which has covered his opinions on various matters in the 2008 presidential election. This is not even including this New York Times blog, this Weekly Standard mention of Patrick Ruffini's opinion on a replacement for a United States Senator, this CNET article mentioning Ruffini's placement in a particular Google site and his status in The Next Right, and this book mentioning his role as the leader of Republican web efforts. I know that many of these are pretty short, but they give a rather complete picture of Patrick Ruffini. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 03:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but none of those sources say anything at all about Patrick Ruffini, the person. All they do is cite his opinions about politics. We don't write biography articles about opinions. We write biography articles about people. Unless you can provide a single reliable secondary source that talks about Patrick Ruffini as a person of note, I don't see how those sources can help support a biographical entry in an encyclopedia. The fact that there are zero articles about Patrick Ruffini as a biographical subject is a serious problem. Patrick Ruffini has strong opinions about politics. We get that. But we need sources that talk about him as a person, and the only ones that do that are self-published. Please consult any one of the 129 politics and government featured articles to see how we use sources to write biography articles. The fact is, we don't have any good biographical sources on Patrick Ruffini. So, why do we have an article on him? Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." None of these sources deal with the subject directly in detail. This has resulted in a large portion of the article being WP:OR. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:NOTE.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is this !vote based upon a search for sources, or just those that were present in the article at the time and/or in this discussion? Please see my comment below in which I have denoted reliable sources that have been added to the article that are comprised of significant coverage about Ruffini. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not extremely notable, but I think there is enough coverage out there on him, he's a well-known GOP media guy and thus gets lots of press mentions. Stuff like this [1] is what tips the scales for me.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the more I look, the more notable he seems to be.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Milowent • hasspoken 15:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Considerable press mentions, profiled in the National Review. If his political life is of more interest than his personal life, that would make this a political biography. The early days of web presence in politics are likely to be a subject of ongoing historical interest. Trilliumz (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, considerable passing mention, with partisan profiles saying "look at what great work he did on this campaign" and "look at the good work he will do in the future". Meanwhile, not a single biographical source on the subject, you know, the kind of sources we need for...a biography? Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please. That's the only semi-biographical source about the subject that isn't self-published, although it does seem to be based on self-published sources. In other words, this is a tertiary source. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I've found more reliable sources that are comprised of significant coverage about Ruffini and have added them to the article:
  • Preston, Mark (March 19, 2009). "GOP follows Obama lead, embraces new media". CNN. Retrieved April 4, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  • Dailey, Kate (January 16, 2012). "Can online gaming influence a US presidential election?". BBC. Retrieved April 4, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
—Northamerica1000(talk) 23:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. May I ask, how did you find those sources? I will withdraw this nomination. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sources were found using comprehensive searches other than results from Google news, which sometimes provides inadequate results. Maybe someday the "find sources" templates can be improved to include options for other news source searches besides just Google news. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:49, 5 April 2012 (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/Patrick_Ruffini&oldid=1099463005"