Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Rudd

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 of the debate was Keep. Kusma (討論) 02:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rudd[edit]

~~Delete.~~ Weak keep.Article seems to concern a very questionably notable individual whose notability is restricted to a small portion of history concerning Columbia University. Topic does not seem encyclopedic. Strothra 17:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC) vote changed per revision --Strothra 00:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have never heard of him, but a Google search gives 28,500 hits. Some of the first of these come from established news sources (PBS, Salon.com, msnbc) which have apparently found him interesting enough even nearly 40 years after the events to interview him or write about him. u p p l a n d 18:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable member of the sixties antiwar movement, not just at Columbia. Fan1967 19:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The topic is still obscure and has failed to attract users to wikify the article as stated in WP:NN. Also, he is currently a mathematics instructor for the University of New Mexico but clearly fails to meet the standards set in WP:PROFTEST. Further, I doubt that all 28,500 of those hits refer to the same Mark Rudd. You should attempt googling "Mark William Rudd." This search brings up only about 5 hits. One of those is an interview, the others are mostly about his courses at UNM. He also does not seem to have made any significant impact beyond his circle at Columbia where he was an advocate of violent revolution. --Strothra 19:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His notability has nothing to do with his current job, so the professor test is irrelevant. A more specific google search [1] still returns over 20K hits, and they look specifically relevant to him. I've never heard him referred to using the middle name, so I'm not surprised those hits would be low. Fan1967 19:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Mark was one of the central figures of the radicalized anti-Vietnam War movement; to say he made no significant impact beyond his circle at Columbia is not much more accurate than describing Usama bin Laden as someone whose principal influence was on airline security. The online New York Times index shows over 300 articles relating to him, from 1967 through to this year. There should be zero question about the notability or encyclopedic nature of the subject, and the nominator should withdraw this remarkably inappropriate suggestion to avoid embarassing himself or herself further. Monicasdude 02:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be fair to the nominator, the article deals almost exclusively with the Columbia SDS, and almost totally ignores Rudd's activities with the Weather Underground. He's right that the article needs work. Fan1967 02:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to be further fair to the nominator, Monicasdude should withdraw uncivil comments MLA 09:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article does not address what he contributed that makes him notable. There is not sign that this individual changed anything as a result of his actions. He created nor was involved in any lasting organization or institution nor were any created due to his actions. Further, simply being noted in a media outlet such as the New York Times does not establish his notability nor does a high google count. His personal impact on society would establish his notability. There seems to be no significant impact and his name is one which is certain to be forgotten outside the realm of an extremely small few. Hardly a subject for encyclopedias and history books. Also, I'll refer back to the fact that no one seems to wish to wikify or contribute to the article in any serious manner when there has been a tag on the article for nearly four months. This is enough to nominate the article for deletion and to follow through with the deletion. Monicasdude, you see adamant about keeping the article, perhaps you should put your actions where your mouth is and actually attempt editing the article rather than putting uncivil comments in the afd discussion. --Strothra 13:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The student antiwar movement of the sixties is not "certain to be forgotten outside the realm of an extremely small few." Nor is the Weather Undergound. Rudd was a significant actor in both. Fan1967 17:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep does appear to be notable but the article is in serious need of work as it is a long way from wiki standards and no-one seems to want to improve on it. MLA 09:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JeffBurdges 13:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to justify your vote? --Strothra 15:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Yikes, are you kidding? Rudd was a central figure in the SDS and student movements of the time; I was eight years old and I still remember him. RGTraynor 20:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Badly in need of a cleanup, but that alone is not grounds to delete it. Ben Aveling 10:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiki policy, it is grounds for deletion when it seems that no one wants to clean it up.--Strothra 21:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are, at the very least, hundreds of articles that have been tagged for cleanup since long before this one. Why are you so anxious to target this? Fan1967 21:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This one's not special. I'll get to others as I find them. Either way, I feel that at least the attention which is brought to this article, if kept, through AfD dicussion should get people to edit it sooner.--Strothra 21:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In need of cleanup, NPOV, and copyvio check, but topic is notable enough. Gamaliel 21:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but article needs serious cleanup. Notable enough, and there are several other articles on Weather Underground figures. RobLinwood 04:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The original article was way too long and kinda boring, but I think my revision is an improvement :-) And he was a figure of nationwide importance. TimothyHorrigan (talk · contribs)

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.