Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Tomson


 * 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. -- Kinu  t/c 04:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ross Tomson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not many citations of his works (collaborations), and little other coverage found of either himself or his company. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment A number of sources have been added to the article, but most of them are connected to Tomson, press releases, or simply "Ross Tomson said" attributions in a discussion of something else. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment Article was added to add clarity to who Ross Tomson is and his current career and overall biography as he has started to become a figure in Houston business and through that and his dealings is thereby notable. Article is heavily cited and well verified by independent sources that verify what is written to be factually accurate.Tomsontech (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment There are numerous citations to articles written by others about Ross Tomson and his companies. See the following citations:  Houston Business Journal citation, Rice News citation, Offshore Magazine citation, Energy.gov citation, and the Texas Bar citations -- all of which are independent sources not tied to Tomson, but written about him or his companies.  Tomsontech (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's review these. I pretty much covered them in my first comment, above.
 * Rice: A single sentence out of an entire article, "The Rice team is working with project leader Brine Chemistry Solutions LLC, a Houston company founded by Tomson’s son, Rice alumnus Ross Tomson" isn't substantial coverage of Ross Tomson. Nor, when this Rice project is written about on Rice's own website, is it independent. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rice: User should understand that this project was a joint Rice University Brine Chemistry Solutions project. The cited source is about Ross Tomson's wholly owned company - Brine Chemistry Solutions and is referenced to show the collaboration between Rice University and Brine Chemistry Solutions, as this was done under Ross Tomson's direct supervision and part of his leadership of the company.Tomsontech (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, it says a lot about Brine Chemistry Solutions. It says nothing about Ross Tomson. And it's Rice talking about Rice's own project. Not independent. A similar example: an actor may be profiled on the websites of numerous theaters in connection with shows at those theaters in which the actor is performing. These profiles aren't independent coverage. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It in fact mentions Ross Tomson by name. It is also talking about a US DOE project that is partly being performed at Rice, not Rice's own project.  Foxglove2016 (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You've begun repeatedly bringing up points I've already addressed. In this case, it was above, when I wrote that a mention by name "isn't substantial coverage" of the person whose name it is. And it is about activity going on at Rice. It isn't arms-length coverage of a person with whom Rice has no involvement. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Offshore: This is an example of one of the scenarios I already noted. He is merely being quoted. Though the article is about his company, it isn't about him. (Notability is generally not considered to be inherited.)
 * Offshore: As should be clear by the article on Ross Tomson, his companies and Ross Tomson are intertwined because the company the wholly owned (and founded) by Ross Tomson and thereby this article discusses activities that Ross Tomson was engaged in through his company Brine Chemistry Solutions. What makes Ross Tomson notable is the fact that he has started this company that works on numerous projects like this one, which garner support from the media including this which was by Rice's media. In addition, this has nothing to do with inherited notability.  Suggest a detailed read of the citation.  Tomsontech (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please refer to my earlier comment about how notability is not generally considered to be inherited. Technically, people can write whole books about a company, but if they never mention the person who owned the company, and he doesn't have coverage of his own, then that person isn't notable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Energy.gov: This can hardly be considered significant coverage of him when neither his first nor last name appears on the page.
 * Energy.gov: Again this user fails to see that this coverage is directly about Ross Tomson's company - Brine Chemistry Solutions (now part of Tomson Technologies) and this project was directly overseen by Ross Tomson himself. I suggest edits to the Ross Tomson page to make direct involvement more obvious to the casual reader. Tomsontech (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See my previous reply. Also, it's the page on Energy.gov that someone would have to update to talk at length about Ross Tomson himself, for it to serve as a source for a finding of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Texas Bar Association: It's a routine database listing that, at best, verifies that he's a lawyer. It isn't "coverage", per se. No contribution to a finding of notability, any more than being listed in the phonebook is.
 * Texas Bar Association:  Yes, that's the point of this citation, to verify that part of the Ross Tomson article.Tomsontech (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's fine that it's serving that role, verification, in the article. But you brought it up to me in the context of this discussion of his notability. And I'm responding to that by explaining that it has no role in assessing this person's notability.
 * Of all these, the Houston Business Journal is the only one that comes close. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Houston Business Journal: This unsolicited article about Ross Tomson verifies the notability of Ross Tomson and factually verifies parts of the Ross Tomson article.  Tomsontech (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're conflating verifiability with notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No I'm not. This article is written about Ross Tomson is meets all the guidelines for notability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline Foxglove2016 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment In addition to the citations above verifying factual information throughout the article, Tomson's journal publications have 10 citation from other publications and are themselves valid citations not originated by Tomson. Tomsontech (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Another citation to an outside written source was added, supporting the Ross Tomson page. Please see citation to Materials & Performance magazine - August 2013. Tomsontech (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please let username Tomsontech (name change request pending to be in line with wikipedia guidelines) know how to best prevent deletion of the page and also allow for review / verification of the contents of the page.Tomsontech (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Namechange successful. Foxglove2016 (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Getting outside of a few counterpoints from above, it's clear that while there are some citations that may be useful for verification of this page, there are some that clearly show notability at a level to satisfy the Wikipedia standards and thereby this deletion request should be removed and the page allowed to remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxglove2016 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The article appears well-written and, despite the conflict of interest (user Tompsontech writing an article about the founder of Tompson Technologies), appears to have been written from a relatively neutral point of view. My biggest concerns are the question of notability, the unsourced nature of some of the biographical information, the fact that most of the references are self-published, and the aforementioned conflict of interest. The latter especially leads me to believe the intent behind this article was self-promotion.

Regarding the question of notability, while there are a handful of secondary sources to support the subject's importance, I don't know that the coverage necessarily qualifies as "significant," per the notability guidelines for people. As such, I second Largo Plazo's nomination for deletion. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks Erick Shepherd, however please consider this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Academics. This subject matter is clearly, among other things, an academic (scientist and researcher) having over a dozen journal articles published.  This of course gives a different threshold for notability as per the article referenced.  It would appear that he falls within a few different categories of people as per the notability article and on the whole appears to pass this notability test for people.  In addition, may I suggest that some edits perhaps are necessary to address your biggest concern of the biographical information -- if that is the area you identify, perhaps removal of those non-referenced parts should be removed without deletion of the page.Foxglove2016 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Per the notability guidelines for academics, "having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are." His publications do not in themselves contribute to his notability unless they have had significant impact in their respective fields. That isn't to say that they have not, but there is little yet in the references to indicate that they have, and so the question of whether notability has been established is still somewhat unclear.


 * With regards to the biographical information, I don't think that their presence or removal would impact the outcome of the deletion proposal since the challenge initially posed was one of notability. However, should the proposal result in the article being kept, removal of the content in question or relevant citation to support it would be warranted in order to keep the article encyclopedic. If that is the verdict, I will be happy to help implement those edits. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per the aforementioned issues. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as my searches found nothing better and none of this is currently convincing better. SwisterTwister   talk  03:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nominator. Someone has gone to an awful lot of trouble to cobble together a long set of laregely weak and irrelevant and references that as a while fail to establish any kind of real-world notability for this individual.
 * Delete. There is nothing here that wouldn't be better in a LinkedIn profile, but really, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Quentin Q. Quackenbush (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2016 (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.