Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald B. Scott (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus he meets WP:AUTHOR  Go  Phightins  !  00:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Ronald B. Scott
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable journalist whose only claim to fame is writing an unauthorized biography of Mitt Romney in 2011. Most sources in the article are written by him, others are about what he has to say about Romney, and the only source that does talk about him is Deseret News saying he has been named its sports editor, which is not an independent source. Thus there are no reliable, independent sources that establish notability, and a Google search didn't bring up any other sources, either. This article was at AfD 2 years earlier, and was deleted. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  13:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  13:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. I can't see any indication he is any more notable now than in the original article, which resulted in deletion. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  15:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Request Hi, I'm the article creator, and this is my first time defending myself at an adf! I honestly though I'd established notability, and surprised by this. The Romney book sold relatively well, and was reviewed, and Scott had a long career at various peridocals. I'm sort of at a loss, but assistance at this stage would be appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete; what we'd need is third-party coverage of Scott, and we have precious little of that. His own works do not contribute to notability in the absence of third-party sources discussing him in some detail. As an aside, Ceoil, please don't take this personally; this isn't an attack against you, but a discussion whether the topic of the article meets the inclusion criterial. Huon (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Huon, I realise that :) Its was my first venture in to US politcs; usually I edit in the camer waters of 15th c art history, so all this is new to me. Can I have time to revist the sourcing; I found the book through fairly mainstream press, need to think and get this sorted. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3, multiple book reviews. Artists such as authors are notable based on reviews or discussions of their works. Reviews include Washington Times, NPR, Desert News, New York Review of Books, NY Times. Some of these are more significant coverage than others but the quality of sources helps improve the notability. I could probably find many more reviews in commercial databases if requested, this was a quick 2 page Google results. -- Green  C  16:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep, per User:Green Cardamom, and possibly WP:NACADEMICS #1 for being an authoritative and extremely commonly cited authority on Mitt Romney --he is not an academic, but it seems analogous. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 04:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The only really strong source here is the NY Review of Books article. The others are either mentions or less strong sources. (I could not find any article in Time magazine that matches the citation.) However, article needs to be based less on Scott's own writing, and more on third-party sources. So I see it as a "keep" only if it is edited to conform to WP standards. LaMona (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep With the book review sources cited above, the article meets WP:AUTHOR #3. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - sufficient notability demonstrated in sources referred to above. Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2014 (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.