Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Wagner


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Wagner

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

CV puffery--probably self-created--regarding a minor entrepreneur, bolstered by snippets about companies he's been involved, not about himself. CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The history speaks not to the companies but specifically to my role in their performance, which I emphasize in each section. There are hundreds of self-created pages, and since I have been a part of the growth of the Internet since the early 1990s', which is inherently of relevance, feel the page should not be deleted. Thank you so much for your consideration and I hope that you conclude it is not puffery, but a listing of facts supported by a lot of researched and presented support references. Thanks! :-) -RW —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucmba (talk • contribs) 02:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Judging from the comment above, can we conclude that this is indeed a WP:Autobiography? The Wired Article does indicate some notability.  I would recommend a weak keep with a serious rewrite by an independent editor.  Ronald Wagner should not edit this article thereafter.  If this is not possible, then redirect to his current company. Symplectic Map (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral I really hate these autobiographies of marginally notable people. There is some indication of notability in the sources.  But, since very few people see them, it's easy for the subject of the article to WP:OWN them.  I have removed some likely unverifiable material about Wagner's birth and education.   Gigs (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: reads too much like a resume as it is. Since there is nothing actually written but job titles, I have to go read all the references to see if he is notable, and I'm not in the mood for that, so I can't say. But it would definitely need to be written as an actual article.--Susan118 (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that sounded a little obnoxious, but my point was, that no one should HAVE to read the sources to get the point of an article. --Susan118 (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It needs a lede, but that's an editing issue. Gigs (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Reads just like a resume, and that's it.  We're not a resume service.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unadulterated, self-admitted vanity article. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  17:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete since no one seems interested in even trying to make it look like an article. Yes I realize the decision to keep or delete is based on notability, and not how good the article is, but as mentioned above, this isn't a resume service, and that's what the "article" looks like, even if there are footnotes. --Susan118 (talk) 16:49, 15 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.