Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald J. Young

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. This was carried out at 00:00, 29 Dec 2004 by Dpbsmith.

Ronald J. Young
Not notable or hoax. --fvw *  00:38, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. n.n. Vanity.  RJY appears to have just showed up, out of the blue.  not VfD.  Please change header.  Article consists of nothing but obscenities and wholly irrelevant content. This was not a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia.  This was an explicit and inarguable bad faith article creation.  --Viriditas  | Talk 03:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of bands whose song titles consist mainly of obscenities. This is not a CSD. --fvw *  01:15, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
 * It's not a band, the songs aren't real, and it's a CSD since the article was created to malign someone named "Ronald J. Young". Please read the entire article. .  Looks like I was wrong.  User has just provided this link. .  The article is still mostly nonsense, however.  --Viriditas  | Talk 03:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Nope, you've been scammed. 8 LPs, 10 EPs, two 'companion' albums, and two or three other collections?  From a guy who supposedly died at 20?  Okay, it's technically within the realm of possibility, but when did he sleep? Shimeru 03:53, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Heh, yes, the article is certainly bogus, but this person/nym, "Ronald J. Young" seems to have made a demo tape, and the songs seem to exist, that's all I'm saying. The rest is science-fiction. :)  See .  --Viriditas  | Talk 03:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious prank, therefore vandalism, therefore a speedy candidate. But will wait a while to see if anyone comes up with any good reasons for not speedy-deleting it. Googling on "Ronald J. Young" yields nothing relevant. (There are enough people by that name that it's not obvious which particular individual is being victimized by this article). Meanwhile I'll slap a "disputed" tag on it. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:57, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, bad faith vandalism. Rje 01:02, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not quite vandalism, but you never know, it could well be. Scott Gall 01:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Please clarify. You seem to be voting for the article to be kept. I think you mean that the article should be deleted but that it is not quite a valid candidate for speedy deletion. Is that right? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I can vouch for the existance of Ronald J. Young, musician. His webpage can be found here: http://roninator.no-ip.org/music/ . My description of the manner of his death was vulgar and slanderous, but I thought it a fitting tribute to him. I have since changed it. 209.170.140.178
 * Note, this comment was left by the anon creator of the article, 209.170.140.178. The link provides no evidence for anyone named Ronald J. Young.  However, if the site does belong to RJY, one look at the song titles tells you everything you need to know about the article.  The article was created to malign someone named "Ronald J. Young".  209.170.140.178 claims that describing his death as "found dead in his bedroom, smothered by a pile of soiled male undergarments" is a tribute.  Further, the article claims that RJY partipated in the "sexual assault of a young boy." --Viriditas  | Talk 01:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If it's libellous or slanderous, speedy it and erase this debate too. Kappa 01:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you find the titles of his songs to be offensive, but it's indisputable that they exist. I've spent the day digging through my MP3 collection and have located a few of them. He did not keep his early work online, because he was embarassed of it, for obvious reasons. If you'd like me to post songs online so you can listen to them, I'd be happy to. And the details of his life are not pretty, but unfortunately they're true. 209.170.140.178
 * I never said I found anything offensive. The "indisputable evidence" that you have provided seems to depict RJY in the exact opposite light as you have attempted to portray him.  However, feel free to substantiate the information in the article.  So far, you have only managed to contradict it. --Viriditas  | Talk 01:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, appears to be a hoax; google turns up approximately nothing on this "musician," aside from a homepage which gives a 404. However, there is a Ronald J. Young who is an author and Middle East peace activist, who seems worthy of an article. Shimeru 02:33, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Is this Google-cached page the one to which you're referring? Dpbsmith (talk) 03:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the one. Yes, it's the same one that was offered as "proof." Shimeru 11:19, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. Megan1967 02:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't feel confident enough to speedy this given Scott Gall's apparent Keep vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed some material from the article which could conceivably be libellous, slanderous, or defamatory if a) the article is a hoax, and b) there is a real Ronald J. Young who is identifiable as the intended victim of the hoax. This material constitutes about 3/4 of the article. To read the full article to which the above comments refer, view this revision.
 * While searching the internet for proof of my friends existence, I turned up this google cache - a comprehensive review of his works up to that point. http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:iiATbDNpOAgJ:www.geocities.com/revochildren/rjyreviews.html+%22ronald+j.+young%22&hl=en 209.170.140.178
 * Comment I am not dead Roninator
 * Delete: Scam/hoax. Geocities sites aren't exactly proof, you know.  Geogre 05:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment Well I am Ronald J. Young, and I'm saying it is fecitious, so delete it Roninator
 * Please clarify... if you're the anon that posted it, please 'fess up and say so and everyone will have a hearty chuckle and shake hands and we'll delete it, no big deal, this sort of prank is common though annoying. If this comment is coming from the author I think we can "speedy delete" the article. If this isn't made clear, we might need to drag the discussion out for the full five-day period. I assume "fecitious" means "fictitious" by the way. (Or "facetious...")
 * If on the other hand you are not the original author, note you can edit the article yourself to correct anything you think is incorrect or defamatory. (But is a our custom not to accept autobiographical articles so don't bother to work it up into a real article). Dpbsmith (talk) 11:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like vanity. The only reference I could find on Google supports my theory - a guestbook entry by a Ronald J. Young from Four Oaks, who says "I am considering becoming a travelling gypsy when I get out of high school. At the moment I make free music with my one man band". David Johnson [ T|C ] 17:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm the author of the article. I confess that the famous Ronald J. is not deceased - I made that part up because I thought it added a nice sense of closure to the piece. I assumed that my article would probably be deleted promptly on the grounds that RJY is not well-known outside of a very small circle of friends and admirers, but I never imagined that the actual content would be disputed. Personally I found it quite comical that I was arguing the existence of a person I know well, and of events that I lived through. Everything in the article (aside from his death) is true or a slight exaggeration of what really happened. Certainly his large body of work does exist, and I encourage anyone who is interested to sample it. However, Ronald himself has asked that the article be deleted, and I defer to his wishes on the matter. 209.170.140.97
 * OK, I'm a little confused about process here, but it seems on the face of it that both the author and the subject of the article&mdash;regardless of whether they are the same person or not&mdash;want it deleted, as do I and as do most of the contributors to this discussion, so I'm speedying it. I think this should be agreeable to everyone, and I think it's within the spirit of the defined process. If anyone wants it restored, just let me know. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.