Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Orp

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 no consensus. Despite two relistings, there is still no consensus -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Orp

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

Speedy contested, is a valid article on de:wiki. Elevating for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Examining de:Ron Orp, I see only two newspaper articles, one looks like a bit of local interest/PR story, leaving the Brazil launch story which also looks very "press release". To meet WP:ORG there has to be significant impact. I'm commenting as "weak delete" as better sources may be forthcoming from those with access to German news. Fæ (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dont see any reason for deletion. this articles subject has reached the level of notability needed.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Account was blocked for block evasion. Amalthea 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources showing notability have been produced. The only arguments for "keep" are such as "this articles subject has reached the level of notability needed" but no indication how or why this is shown, and "per his own notability", with no explanation what that means. In other words there are just assertions that it is notable, with no attempt at all to justify those assertions. The strangest of all is "Keep per notability. just keep".JamesBWatson (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to [Ron Orp's Newsletter]. 2 of the 3 listed sources are substantial articles, and I found a third in English. That is enough to establish notability: significant local coverage (all 3 are Zurich). I have integrated all but the English one as references (it's primarily audio) and added important info that was missing: the names of the founders/owners and the fact Ron Orp is almost certainly fictional. The article still needs its subscriber numbers/dates referencing, and one source mentions cities not listed in the history - are these still to come, or on hold? And it's mistitled. But it passes on notability.Yngvadottir (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to Ron Orp's Newsletter per Yngvadottir. The person fails WP:BIO, but the newsletter seems to have enough of a circulation to merit inclusion. Movementarian (Talk) 13:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the basis of circulation, I see that the 1000th most popular twitter account, "Milton (GeekPolice)", (geekpolice.net is a computer novice and enthusiast website) had over 123,000 followers. By your logic this ought to have a Wikipedia article along with the rest of the top 1000+ as these are more 'notable' than the Ron Orp newsletter. Fæ (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair point. Using my own argument, the newsletter fails WP:WEB and WP:PERIODICAL, though the latter is a proposal and not specifically intended for web newsletters. I guess I was a bit hasty in my opinion. Delete. Movementarian (Talk) 14:22, 8 June 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.