Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Dwight


 * 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. Fails GNG, no sources provided to say otherwise. Opinions expressed by editors with little activity or activity after a long period of dormancy (which accounts for nearly all "keep" votes in this discussion) are given reduced weight because they are likely to be unfamiliar with the current standards of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. bd2412 T 20:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ron Dwight

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While a Google search on shows that this person definitely existed, I can find no coverage in any reliable sources, even in the computing press where you'd expect at the very least a few obituaries. If he'd written WinRAR he'd have a case for notability-by-association, but it's fairly clear that he was just someone who owned the distribution rights in some territories, not the actual developer. None of the three sources are remotely appropriate for use in Wikipedia, and the ELs are either broken or to unreliable websites so can't take their place. &#8209; Iridescent 17:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * keep He has been an influential organiser of the FidoNet community, especially in Europe. I can ask around for a few opinions to help this discussion. ;-) --grin ✎ 13:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * keep Definitely keep - the fact that he was active with WinRAR is inferior to the role he played in FidoNet Germany. As the Zone Coordinator for Europe, he forcefully re-structured and regionalized the whole German FidoNet which he was equally loved and hated for. Looking at the node- and pointlists of that time you can see that FidoNet in Germany was a huge community these days and it can be said that he and the consequences of his actions were a ubiquitous topic in all administrational discussions. --ius ✎ 22:00, 16 November 2017 (CET) —  has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. The Bushranger One ping only 10:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * keep Definitely keep - Ron Dwight's impact on the European part of FidoNet scene was huge. --Joho68 ✎ 22:23, 16 November 2017 (CET) — Joho68 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Joho68 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)


 * keep I was part of the FidoNet as the time as Ron was involved. --Warpjogi ✎, 14:38, 18. November 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 13:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)  — Warpjogi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * keep During the heyday of FidoNet Ron was one of the defining figures on how the FidoNet worked in Europe, and rather controversial figure as his opinions were strong, and he wasn't afraid to voice them Punkki (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC) — Punkki (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - I had originally gone to close this as a keep, but then certain things were pointed out to me, and at a second look this discussion does smell sharply of WP:SOCK vote-stacking - note the SPAs and identical signatures. I'm going to reopen and procedurally relist this accordingly. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you have chosen to assume bad faith instead of communicating. I am extremely disappointed. I would kindly ask you to reconsider what you have done, and revert your actions here, if you agree. The details have been written on my talk page, responding your notice. If you have questions to me: ask them. Communicate. --grin ✎ 12:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between 'bad faith' and 'caution'. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 10:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * comment - all the opinions can be read above. I don't think it'd be reasonable to ask people repeat it here again. Mine, too. (A sidenote: guys, you could expand the Fidonet part in the article, I haven't been involved in the German part too much.) --grin ✎ 12:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: no indication of WP:GNG here, no independent third party sources to establish notability. The prevalence of WP:SPA accounts all supporting "keep" above while not providing any refs is a concern, see WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of your points (spa,refs) have been fixed since. --grin ✎ 15:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No they haven't, still no independent sources to show notability. Also you can't use unpublished emails as a source for encyclopedia articles. - Ahunt (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete no independent sources in the article's references or external links. I searched Google books, the web and news and found no significant coverage.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (Independent of the subject of the article. All sources were independent of the subject, as far as I know. --grin ✎ 15:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC))
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTMEMORIAL - no references cited to establish notability or any indication they exist. Atsme 📞📧 17:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Nothing found of any interest in a search and seeing the lack of new sources brought froward by the highly partisan arguments from the stacked voters some of whom have woken up after 7 years of inactivity, I doubt that any will pop up now. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NOTMEMORIAL, the edit summary for the creation of this page is "in memorian [sic] ron" Domdeparis (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * comment - This is not fair. You expect people to turn up while you guys expect me not to notify them. There is no guideline that people who edit wikipedia twice in a millenia (or, actually, not ever) cannot participate in AfD, nor that opinions of people not checking back soon enough wouldn't matter. Also since it has been proven - as far as I see, but I'm pretty open to run checkuser against me if anyone needs that way of satisfaction - that all the people up there are real, separate and possessing his/her own opinion, I would really appreciate if you would not ignore their opinion. I already have inserted (some) sources (which possibly could have improved upon); I have already told why sources are hard to find; already told why the person is notable (while I accept that he's on the lower bound of the notability scale for people not being familar with the network and general networking history, still pretty relevant in the course of the shaping if FidoNet which have lead to internet implementation later by the same persons). Also some of you are strongly advised to read WP:APPNOTE, which has been followed in this case (and has been ignored by the labeling above!), an remove canvassing marks from the people. Thanks. --grin ✎ 15:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * None of the points about notability have been addressed. When we look at the sources we judge whether they meet WP:GNG standards and these don't. I know nothing about fidonet or this person but I don't need to to see whether the sources are sufficient. Which of the sources are independent and in depth coverage in reliable?Domdeparis (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2017 (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.