Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricco Wright


 * 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. I'm sorry Bluenotetote but the consensus here is that while Ricco Wright may be an amazing person, he's not notable at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfied to User:Bluenotetote/Ricco Wright per suggestion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ricco Wright

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable vanity page. Sole contributor appears to be the subject of the article, though he changed his name. Ori.livneh (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wow, what a lengthy biography. Yet despite all those words, I am at a complete loss as to what he supposed to be notable for.  He appears to a bright guy who has received some student scholarships and student awards.  Most of the article reads like "Dear diary..." written in the third person. And finally, no reliable sources covering this person to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears to have had a few minutes of peripheral fame regarding a one-time incident that happened to someone else in 2007, but that's about it. This article is basically just a gigantic vanity piece about his going to college and essential all WP:OR. Uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete. This is entirely about what the world has contributed to Ricco Wright, and nothing about what Ricco Wright has contributed to the world. Once he starts making those contributions and reliable sources start documenting and recognizing them, then we can have an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral The article cites Reliable third party sources that are independent of the subject. Also, this article does not have one sole contributer, it has been edited by many different editors and was created through the Articles for Creation process. It does appear that he received quite a bit of coverage in a incident that occurred in 2007,    (WP:BLP1E may apply). Much of the biography section relies on tc.edu, which is a primary source so it must be replaced. If replacements cannot be found, then the article should be deleted or tagged with Template:BLP primary sources. I also see that the article has some neutral point of view issues, but they can be addressed.  Alpha Quadrant    talk    19:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He was quoted briefly in some news stories about an incident that he had little or no actual connection to beyond being associated with the same school. I wouldn't call that "quite a bit of coverage". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - let's write an article on this guy in 20 years time when he's actually done something notable. Anthem 15:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral - What Alpha Quadrant said. One more point: this article is well done in terms of adding references, wikilinks, and overall presentation. In the spirit of WP:NEWBIES, especially for a newbie who's going out of their way to write in Wikipedia style, is there some other place we might suggest this be posted? Trilliumz (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Encouraging new editors is good. Encouraging the addition of articles which do not meet inclusion criteria, no matter how well-written is bad.  He can always publish his biography on his own web site, or Wikibios. -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Good point. In such case, I believe WP:Userfication seems to be the best choice. The only reason not to userfy a biographical article is if the article contains objectionable material (for example, if the article disparages or insults the subject, but that does not seem to be the case here). In short, there is no rule against userfying this article. — Code Hydro  21:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete He sounds like a brilliant young man and I wish him well. Someday he may become notable and then we can write about that. However, there is absolutely nothing in this article that justifies its inclusion in an encyclopedia. (Seriously - an entire paragraph about his music collection? A whole section on what books he read and how he interpreted them?) --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Userfy - While granting that the guy as interviewed by NPR and CNN and that the subject appears to fall into a bit of a gray area with regards to notability, I strongly suggest however, in the spirit of WP:NEWBIES, that the article is userfied rather than deleted. This article obviously took a lot of work to produce and is even fairly well-written and sourced; considering how much the main author has contributed to this particular article, it's not hard to imagine that this editor could contribute a great deal to Wikipedia in the future. I hope the closing administrator will consider this option of userfying the article despite all those "votes" of delete... WP:Userfication accomplishes everything deletion does, except much less calloused and disrespectful among other things. — Code Hydro  21:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Changing vote to Strong Userfy for reasons listed above. Trilliumz (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2011 (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.