Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronnie Rucker

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Rucker[edit]

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

A radio show host and "co-creator" of a magazine. Despite a handful of references, there is no evidence of notability. Most refs are blogs or not independent. Searching for subject's name brings up a lot of Twitter, blogs etc. Two appearances on non-notable shows, neither of which are mentioned anywhere outside the Youtube, Twitter, Myspace universe. The magazine is unheard of, with only one non-Wikipedia mention on Google. Recently announced a run for politics, but we don't keep candidates on Wikipedia until they win at state level. PROD added twice, and removed by two contributors whose only edits concern this article. Potentially libelous statements about drinking problems made without refs. Dmol (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I'm not the original author but am one of the users mentioned as trying to edit the article in question. I'm new and added my reason why I disagree with the arguments to delete this article in the Talk Page. If I was wrong to do it that way I apologize. RR4PREZ (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC) — RR4PREZ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I Added more to Pendejo Magazine Section. Found review of magazine with mention of articles subject as it's Publisher. Added Category Zines. As a Zine it inherently shouldn't be easily found on Google, shouldn't be cause for deletion. Found mention of Shaka Talk in an article in the Honolulu Weekly, publication outside of the Youtube, Twitter, MySpace universe. Removed potentially libelous statement, not needed & a distraction from the article. Removed contended statement about running for office, seemed out of place anyways. RR4PREZ (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His radio show doesn't seem to be notable, and neither does his zine. (Zines don't get special treatment because they're obscure; it's assumed that any Zine that has achieved notability will have risen out of obscurity in the process.) —Paul A (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree it being a Zine shouldn't qualify it for special treatment but because it's a Zine, inherently not notable, one shouldn't be able to assume because said Zine isn't popular, or "risen out of obscurity," it should be used as a cause to delete an article as it was in the Original AfD and once again above. (note: if memory serves me correctly, zine was not an issue in the original two PROD's) The edits, including the fact that it was a Zine, since the Original AfD were made to address the reasons that provoked this discussion. I think I addressed them well as one could infer by the article being Relisted due to lack of consensus, or what would seem to be the case, no definitive reason for deletion was apparent. If there were I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be having to write this. From the beginning of this process, with the exception of one other user, I haven't seen one editor attempt to improve this article, for example the potentially libelous statements, they were used as a cause for delete as first resort in the original PROD's and once again in the AfD rather than being deleted from the article. Another example is the notion that the subject of this article announced a run for political office. Instead of deleting the statement, trying to get clarification, adding citation needed tags, or any other of the myriad of options available to users, straight to AfD, supported by evidence that one would have to read the original statement with a very crooked eye to reach that conclusion (see discussion page). Instead of looking past the first page of a Google search it's claimed that there are zero mentions of subject outside of a particular universe, straight to PROD. Instead of researching and making an attempt to understand something more, things get labeled "unheard of" and straight to PROD. With that said, there is no way that this article or any article for that matter, can defend it's self against vague causes for deletion like "doesn't seem notable," lazy research, or outright untruths like "no mentions outside of the Youtube, Twitter, or the MySpace universe" as addressed (see edit history). I'm at loss. Is there a process? Is it taken seriously? RR4PREZ (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, (As the person who listed it for AFD). Despite all the several pages of commentry you have added here and on other talk pages, you still have not done what needs to be done and that is to prove that Ronnie Rucker is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Nothing you have added or removed from the article has changed that.--Dmol (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not even sure his 'radio' show is even broadcast anywhere, it appears to be a self-produced web-only thing. And zines can rarely be notable, but the people who make them aren't. The obvious self-promotion/WP:COI/Spam issues aren't helping any either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the sources provided in the article meet WP:RS, and I can't find anything to establish general notability. Delete I'm afraid! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:27, 8 October 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.