Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Manners

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. (non-admin closure) Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Manners[edit]

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

Deletion requested by 180.216.99.150 (talk · contribs), with the rationale "This seems to be a vanity page written by his staff with mention of his self-published books and other un notable activities. He deserves a mention on the ANDEV page and the miners hall of fame but not his own vanity wikipedia page." I have no opinion on this matter. Number 5 7 15:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For attention of the closer, please note canvassing by Zigzig20s at the Libertarianism and Conservatism WikiProjects. Number 57 15:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you; I have censored my comments on the pages of those wikiprojects, but I still believe they need to be warned that this is happening.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, please look at the talkpage and see that some info is being removed as we are discussing a possible AFD. This does not look neutral to me. It could be seen as a way to make the article look weaker, thus possibly leading to a deletion.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some of his books have been removed AGAIN, by the same unregistered address.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please "vote" on his talkpage on whether to keep his books or remove them. I vote yes, to eschew obscurantism.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Fully referenced page about a prominent mining investor (including chairman of publicly traded companies), founder and chairman of a prominent free market think tank, member of the Mont Pelerin Society, Board member of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, etc. Clearly notable. Not a vanity page at all.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The IP nominator clearly hadn't read WP:GNG or WP:BEFORE. The subject is notable, therefore keep. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the deleted, yet noteworthy material, is restored. Promotional language toned down. Canvassing by Zig may have been prompted by frustration at the edits seen, but does not impact the argument for deletion one way or the other. – S. Rich (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the vast bulk of this article seems cited to Manner's online biographies and a laughably small mention in a news article about Gina Rinehart, so I can see why someone would have serious concerns about it. However, there is a lengthy 2011 article about him in the Sydney Morning Herald and a radio programme which seems to have him as the main guest, which suggests this guy has some notability. Sionk (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent mainstream sources, some good books on history of mining, notable in his own right. Wondering where the OP got their notions about vanity and staff from - this is the very antithesis of a vanity article full of puff and fluff. --Pete (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this looks like a bit of a strangely-written article in that it almost makes him look less notable, but the sources and claims to notability are very much there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work but notable. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: For some reason, this nomination was also added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 21, in addition to the log for June 24. I have removed the June 21 entry. Mz7 (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2014 (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.