Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Rooks

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The result was nomination withdrawn. Closing over outstanding delete !vote per WP:IAR. Anybody who objects is free to revert this close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rooks[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP for which I can find no significant independent coverage to verify notability. The closest thing to a reliable source I found was this, which is not exactly a glowing endorsement for the man or his company. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 18:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although he did indeed achieve an award [1], I'm not sure this rises to a high enough level to make the award recipients automatically notable. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think he makes it as notable. The award does appear to be significant - it is given to only one person a year, and it is from a major professional society. I edited the article, added a reference and some books he has co-authored. I also verified that he is licensed and his license is clear. (I checked because there are various attacks on him and his facility in blogs and non-reliable sources on the web, and Ponyo above found a reference in an Iowa newspaper to a court case against him; but as I said, the California veterinary board [2] doesn't list any actions or restrictions against his license.) --MelanieN (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given Melanie's great work in finding sources for the article and detective work on the licensing issues, I withdraw my original concerns regarding the article; however given that there is a delete vote included then the AfD will need to run its full course. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 13:19, 9 September 2010 (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.