Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Ross (publisher)


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Bob Ross (publisher)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. Redirect to Bay Area Reporter. KidAd  talk  06:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  Glee anon 11:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, easily passes GNG. I found:
 * With tons more available.  Glee anon 10:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't just dump like 20 search hits and cry notable. I'm not saying "no" here yet, but the couple of these I checked at random are passing mentions or more about the publishing business than Ross.  WP:THREE offers some good advice here.  Show us the 3 best (and maybe even throw in a couple more for good measure if they're really worth it).  But this is the AFD equivalent of WP:NOTEBOMB. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 12:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * These are sources fully appropriate for use on the article. I vetted them and despite your aspersions, I’m not just crying anything.As for three, the two obituaries, and the history of LGBTQ activism and culture in Out in the Castro: Desire, Promise, Activism should do quite nicely.  Glee anon 14:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, some of these are clearly junk sources that do nothing to establish notability. Source dumps like this are more harmful than helpful.  Just because someone is mentioned somewhere, it doesn't matter.  You've now mentioned a few that you think are best, but which ones specifically?  I'm really trying to help out here, and there are no aspersions.  It's just a matter of what's useful in a discussion like this. Also, please leave the collapse in place.  It's extremely disruptive to the flow of the discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude, that source list is AWESOME. And he just gave you three sources. sheesh. -- Green  C  14:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It would help if I didn't have to go hunting through to see which he's talking about, but yes, the obits at least look good. But the lumping in of bad sources among the good isn't helpful.  A lot of these most definitely are passing mentions only. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * None of those is bad, all can be used to add content on the article.  Glee anon 14:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Picking one at radom, this doesn't even mention Ross. It does mention the Ross foundation, but that's different.  And the mention is of the briefest variety.  This  be used to establish notability, and your continued insistence to the contrary is dishonest . –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * With tons more available.  Glee anon 10:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't just dump like 20 search hits and cry notable. I'm not saying "no" here yet, but the couple of these I checked at random are passing mentions or more about the publishing business than Ross.  WP:THREE offers some good advice here.  Show us the 3 best (and maybe even throw in a couple more for good measure if they're really worth it).  But this is the AFD equivalent of WP:NOTEBOMB. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 12:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * These are sources fully appropriate for use on the article. I vetted them and despite your aspersions, I’m not just crying anything.As for three, the two obituaries, and the history of LGBTQ activism and culture in Out in the Castro: Desire, Promise, Activism should do quite nicely.  Glee anon 14:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, some of these are clearly junk sources that do nothing to establish notability. Source dumps like this are more harmful than helpful.  Just because someone is mentioned somewhere, it doesn't matter.  You've now mentioned a few that you think are best, but which ones specifically?  I'm really trying to help out here, and there are no aspersions.  It's just a matter of what's useful in a discussion like this. Also, please leave the collapse in place.  It's extremely disruptive to the flow of the discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude, that source list is AWESOME. And he just gave you three sources. sheesh. -- Green  C  14:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It would help if I didn't have to go hunting through to see which he's talking about, but yes, the obits at least look good. But the lumping in of bad sources among the good isn't helpful.  A lot of these most definitely are passing mentions only. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * None of those is bad, all can be used to add content on the article.  Glee anon 14:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Picking one at radom, this doesn't even mention Ross. It does mention the Ross foundation, but that's different.  And the mention is of the briefest variety.  This  be used to establish notability, and your continued insistence to the contrary is dishonest . –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * With tons more available.  Glee anon 10:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't just dump like 20 search hits and cry notable. I'm not saying "no" here yet, but the couple of these I checked at random are passing mentions or more about the publishing business than Ross.  WP:THREE offers some good advice here.  Show us the 3 best (and maybe even throw in a couple more for good measure if they're really worth it).  But this is the AFD equivalent of WP:NOTEBOMB. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 12:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * These are sources fully appropriate for use on the article. I vetted them and despite your aspersions, I’m not just crying anything.As for three, the two obituaries, and the history of LGBTQ activism and culture in Out in the Castro: Desire, Promise, Activism should do quite nicely.  Glee anon 14:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, some of these are clearly junk sources that do nothing to establish notability. Source dumps like this are more harmful than helpful.  Just because someone is mentioned somewhere, it doesn't matter.  You've now mentioned a few that you think are best, but which ones specifically?  I'm really trying to help out here, and there are no aspersions.  It's just a matter of what's useful in a discussion like this. Also, please leave the collapse in place.  It's extremely disruptive to the flow of the discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude, that source list is AWESOME. And he just gave you three sources. sheesh. -- Green  C  14:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It would help if I didn't have to go hunting through to see which he's talking about, but yes, the obits at least look good. But the lumping in of bad sources among the good isn't helpful.  A lot of these most definitely are passing mentions only. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * None of those is bad, all can be used to add content on the article.  Glee anon 14:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Picking one at radom, this doesn't even mention Ross. It does mention the Ross foundation, but that's different.  And the mention is of the briefest variety.  This  be used to establish notability, and your continued insistence to the contrary is dishonest . –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * None of those is bad, all can be used to add content on the article.  Glee anon 14:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Picking one at radom, this doesn't even mention Ross. It does mention the Ross foundation, but that's different.  And the mention is of the briefest variety.  This  be used to establish notability, and your continued insistence to the contrary is dishonest . –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bob Ross Foundation, obviously named after the subject, is a subsection of this bio and part of his legacy. From that source is "Yamashita now has an 80 percent stake in the company; the Bob Ross Foundation retains its 20 percent collateral shares. The foundation, named after the paper’s founding publisher, had to divest itself of the majority of its ownership interest in the paper four years ago during the restructuring."

This is perfectly appropriate content and the source adds to his GNG notability. It is dishonest, and disruptive to claim otherwise.  Glee anon 15:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. The non-profit is discussed in the biography, it can be used in the article ("These are sources fully appropriate for use on the article").  --  Green  C  15:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I have expanded the article with some of the excellent sources provided by . Thank you, Gleeanon409, for doing that research. A lot more could still be done. -- Green  C  14:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Glee's hard work. Caro7200 (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nominator is not proposing deletion and their claim that the subject does not pass WP:GNG is clearly false – see LA Times, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the criteria for speedy keeping are met here (yet, unless the nom decides to withdraw). A claim that something doesn't meet GNG is perfectly normal.  Even if the nom is just wrong, that's still a valid reason to nominate something. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy closure is always an option per WP:SNOW. It seems quite sensible in this case because no-one, not even the nominator or DV, think that the page should be deleted.  See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. The couple detailed obits in major papers are probably enough here. It would have been helpful to simply have led with those and not send us on a wild goose chase through a bunch of bad sources.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, none of those sources is bad, despite your ABF that they are. It’s dishonest and beneath collegial editing.  Glee anon 15:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources are not helpful for establishing notability, being merely passing mentions. There's nothing uncollegial about stressing this point.  We need  coverage in sources to establish notability.  As I said, I think the obits push just over the line here, but the rest that I checked don't. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s simply untrue. GNG is about a breadth of coverage which can be met with numerous sources. All of these fulfilled the GNG concern.  Glee anon 15:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Also sources Out in the Castro: Desire, Promise, Activism (2002), Gay Bathhouses and Public Health Policy (2013), Fit to Serve (2011), and The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk (2008). Right cite (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The person who has been the most critical of the article is Deacon Vorbis, and they voted Weak Keep. I'm not sure why folks are still trying to argue with DV about it. :) We don't need to keep fighting; everyone who's posted so far thinks that the sources meet GNG (weakly or strongly). Love wins. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For my part I took exception to the idea that I was doing anything but posting useful sources that would benefit the article.  Glee anon 19:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that happens all the time in AfD discussions; it's not that serious. You don't need to defend your honor. If anybody posts more than three times in an AfD discussion, it usually means they have a weak case. It's much more effective to just post your argument, and then step away, so that other people get a chance to look at the sources, and make their own decision. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the improvements during AfD by GreenC and the sources found. WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't this an improper AfD as the nominator suggested a redirect? – The Grid  ( talk )  23:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is deletion. What happens after is sometimes resolved during the AfD itself. Two step process. -- Green  C  23:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GNG — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 16:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.