Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth W. Royce


 * 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 as per consensus and no deletion requests beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth W. Royce

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete because it fails WP:BIO and lacks sources. This does not preclude mention of his name in other articles if appropriate. Bejnar (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP.  This writer is influential in shooting and Libertarian circles. He is also a leader in the Free State Project.  His book sales figures alone make him notable. One of his books (Boston's Gun Bible) is presently ranked as follows on Amazon: No. 1 in	 Books > Professional & Technical > Engineering > Materials > Metallurgy, and  No. 2 in	 Books > Professional & Technical > Law > Criminal Law > Law Enforcement

The book has a 5 star rating, with 105 reviews. This is almost unheard of, once a book has 30+ reviews. (Usually at least a few readers see fit to pan most books, and this knocks ratings down to 4 or 4.5 stars.)

Let's add some references and improve this article. The subject is definitely notable. With so many of his books in print, sources should not be too difficult to excavate. Trasel (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- Very notable author and well known within Free State Wyoming project. Yaf (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- the problem is with the article, not the subject. Royce meets several standards under WP:BIO including the "notable award or honor", "widely recognized contribution", "regarded as an important figure", and "widely cited" clauses, and if nothing else, the "significant 'cult' following" clause. Royce's books have been widely read and discussed. He is a regular guest at political conventions and on radio shows. With appropriate references, there'd be no issue about keeping the article. 67.164.125.7 (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- Royce is a widely read and respected libertarian author with at least 5 non-fiction and one fiction title currently available in print and new from amazon.com. Other titles are by the same author are widely available used through amazon.com and other vendors. The author is a primary instigator of the Free State Wyoming political migration project and is a regular guest on radio and at political conventions. The article may certainly benefit by improvement but notability is not at issue. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The article definitely needs improvement but he is certainly a notable and widely read author. Lord Bodak (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- Royce's massive Boston's Gun Bible is a definitive reference. The article under discussion should be retained in Wikipedia and sources should be added.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FredElbel743 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Mr. Royce is well regarded liberatian with 8 books to his credit including You & the Police as well as what has come to be considered a standard work Boston's Gun Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.22.40 (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep He's very well known in libertarian, firearm, Free State and some other circles. The last couple of years, I see a trend of marking articles for deletion when they only need improvement. While it's a good evolutionary tactic, I think it's less appropriate for Wikipedia.  Tag it for cleanup and improvement instead.Mzmadmike (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This article has been around for years, tagging it for improvement has not seemed to help. --Bejnar (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment the problem is not that people don't read his writings, they do. The problem is that none of what you'all say above about him is substantiated.  At present there is not a single citation in the article to a reliable published source, or to any source at all!  The article cannot stand without sound support. Biographies of living persons says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That would apply to this entire article at present. Please, if you want to save the article from deletion, provide some citation to significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. as per WP:BIO. --Bejnar (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article needs references, but the Wiki rule that you cited refers biographies with "contentious material". There is nothing contentious in the  article about Royce.  Please drop your AfD campaign.  Thusfar, you are a chorus of one. Trasel (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote, it is the strength of the arguments that ought to prevail. I have sought reliable citations in published works for the biographical material, and not found them. I honestly believe that while the Boston's Gun Bible might be notable, its author is not. Cites to sources like http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Kenneth-W.-Royce which copy the Wikipedia article do not qualify as legitimate sources.  --Bejnar (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Re:Bejnar's comment: "I have sought reliable citations in published works for the biographical material, and not found them. " Well, I don't know where you looked, but I found several references in just a few minutes of Google searches, including a Casper, Wyoming newspaper article.Trasel (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I searched www.casperstartribune.net using "Kenneth W. Royce" and got no hits, do you have a cite? --Bejnar (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The citation you seem unable to find is already listed in the wikipedia article in question. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO states, "This notability guideline for biographies[2] is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed." The consensus, or near consensus anyway, appears to be STRONG KEEP. It may be true it is difficult to find conventional sources that mention Kenneth W. Royce/Boston T. Party, but let's not forget Wikipedia is itself unconventional. Kenneth does have notoriety in any reasonable sense of the word, in many locations on the internet, due to the unusual nature of the subjects on which he has written. -- Paul Bonneau —Preceding undated comment added 06:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC).
 * I see that the Casper newspaper article "Freedom on the frontier: Gun-toting "Free Staters" make their move into Wyoming" lists him as "Kenneth T. Royce". It says he wrote a novel, once lived in Durango, CO, supports the FSW movement and opposes the FSNH movement. That source appears to be the only independent, reliable, published source for biographical data. Citing to publisher blurbs and Free Stater blogs doesn't cut it.  --Bejnar (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have issue with the material and cannot find citations for it, remove it. Turn the article into a stub if that's what it takes (although, as stated above, the uncited material is not contentious).  However, the author is notable and deletion is not justified.  From WP:BIO 2: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards" and 2.1: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."  Boston's Gun Bible is widely recognized in the firearms community.  Even ignoring all of his other published work, that alone clearly makes the author notable with respect to Wikipedia standards. Lord Bodak (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm confident that Bejnar is well-intentioned and made his nomination in good faith, it is now obvious that the consensus view is that the Royce is indeed notable and that his biography be retained and improved. Bejnar states "...That source appears to be the only independent, reliable, published source for biographical data." Yes, that is true, but it does not detract from the fact that Royce is VERY well known in some circles (shooting, survivalist, and Libertarian).  A lack of numerous print references is not at all unusual for biographies of individuals that primarily have a web presence. Simply put: You just won't  find a lot of hard copy references to people who primarily have a web presence.  This AfD should be dropped.  Let's just add more hard copy references, as they become available..  Trasel (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - as I don't know much about American libertarian/pro-gun politics, I'm willing to defer to those who do that this author is highly notable within the field. I must admit the nominator is right though, that this article is very poorly sourced. It seems the problem here is that the only sources that have written about him are, inevitably, fringe ones - there's basically nothing from reliable mainstream sources. On the other hand, I don't have any reason to believe that anything the fringe sources claim about Royce is actually incorrect. On balance I'm leaning keep here, but it's a borderline case, and better sources really need to be found. Robofish (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2009 (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.