Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ransom F. Shoup II

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. There is a clear consensus, that however it's not clear if a separate article is warranted. A merge discussion can take place at the articles talk page. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ransom F. Shoup II

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Convicted and given a fine and a suspended sentence for election tampering. Too insignificant to even warrant WP:BLP1E. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Shoup Voting Machine Company and the RF Shoup Company appears to be notable and I can find reports about them going back as early as 1929, but I'm not sure if there is enough on this guy (who appears to be a relative of the founder). The subject and the incident mentioned probably belong in an article about the company/companies. Location (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll second that comment. The series of Shouptronic voting machines, the Shoup company and even the Shoup family as a whole (with members still in the voting systems industry today) all likely meet the notability bar, but R.F. Shoup II likely does not. The references here don't seem particularly reliable. There is an extensive history of voting machine companies that WP would greatly benefit from having articles covering though. Electiontechnology (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge. I was disappointed to learn that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on Shoup Voting Machine Corporation (its actual name) which was very significant in the history of elections in the United States.(quo vide Voting machine) I made an Article Needed note on Talk:Ransom F. Shoup II to myself or any motivated editor is making an effort to improve Wikipedia. When the article on the company is done, the sad ending of Ransom F. Shoup II can be merged in. patsw (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wikipedia is not a WP:STORAGEFACILITY. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum. I've created the company article, but I'm not 100% certain that II committed his crimes while with that company. Apparently he had a falling out with his father when he tried to oust him (while papa was in the hospital). He may have set up another, similarly named company (now where did I see that?). Yeesh, his company name's not even mentioned in the appeal ruling. More digging required. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum 2. As near as I can figure out, Ransom Shoup and Ransom Shoup II left and started R. F. Shoup Corp. in 1972.[1], so the latter's activities after that year shouldn't be merged into Shoup Voting Machine Corporation. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - keep until another appropriate article to merge it with is created. but until then keep,.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am sure those 35 words could find a better home. Kiltpin (talk) 18:21, 30 January 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.