Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ronnie Rucker

As one of the two contributors that removed the initial PROD, and not the person that created this article, I’d like to dispute this new deletion proposal. I have some concerns with the reasons it should be deleted. I thought I addressed, however apparently not well enough, the inclusion of potentially libelous statements as cause for deletion. When I deleted it as a reason from the original PROD I added in my edit summary why I felt like it wasn’t libelous. If my reason wasn’t good enough it would seem that the removal of the statement or a citation needed tag was in order, rather than a reason to delete the whole article. I would gladly remove the statement and/or welcome the removal of it by another contributor with no discussion needed. Furthermore I stand by my reasoning for removing it as a cause to delete the entire article in the original PROD, and view it’s inclusion in this discussion as “piling on” to strengthen the argument for deletion. I agree with the idea of not including candidates on Wikipedia until they win at the state level whole heartedly, but disagree for it to be used as a reason to delete, in the case of this article. Very much a work in progress I admit this article is not very long, but my reading of what has been added so far doesn’t describe the subject of the article as a politician. It seems like something the author of this article added as a side note of some sort. I agree it’s something better suited for another section or a statement that should be deleted at this point but I disagree with the idea that its inclusion in some way can be used to categorize the subject as a candidate for political office. It’s a stretch to label the subject as a candidate of some sort and a bigger stretch to use it as cause to delete the article. I readily admit that I’m new to this community and am not well versed in the guild lines but I don’t recall seeing anything about an article needing a prerequisite number of contributors or number of articles edited by contributors as a reason for an article to be included in Wikipedia as inferred in the most recent deletion proposal by pointing out the fact that I and only one other contributor deleted the original PROD. Yes I’m one of few contributors but who else can we in this case expect to remove them with reason as stated in the PROD itself, the people that added them in the first place? If number of contributions, edits, & contributors is prerequisite then I stand corrected. Attaching unheard of to something, in this case the magazine, seems really subjective. I have been trying to find as much info on the magazine as I can and have found that it was published at first as a cut and pasted publication in the early Nineties, has gone through many incarnations and is now defunct. Unheard of because a simple Google search didn’t uncover anything or unheard of cause some people haven’t heard of it? I’ve heard of it and have actually looked through a couple on my own. Deletion of the article because a simple Google search turned up nothing suggests to me it isn’t popular enough to rank on the search engine or maybe in the early 1990‘s activist journalism wasn’t something established journalism recognized thus very little was written about it, but it’s far from being unheard of. Is somethings popularity a determining factor when determining an articles inclusion? If it is I stand corrected. When it comes to the argument that the two appearances on non-notable shows, your words not mine, should be cause for the deletion of this article I disagree. I would refer back to the argument about labeling the magazine unheard of. One of the shows Shaka Talk was, as cited, aired on a one of Olelo’s many channels, Oceanic channel 52 that serves the state of Hawaii, and has been servicing the state since 1989. This newest deletion debate says it isn’t mentioned outside of the Youtube, Twitter, MySpace universe. As cited, it clearly is posted on demand via Olelo’s service to provide programing from Hawaii to people worldwide. So deletion on the grounds that it’s not mentioned outside of the Youtube, Twitter, MySpace universe seems a bit over the top, false, or maybe just added to prejudice peoples opinions of the inclusion of this article. The second show in question is the Frugal Tech Live program, which I contend is more than non-notable. As cited the show, like many today, broadcasts via the internet. Broadcasts today are delivered through means like Youtube, Vimeo, and other video streaming sources. So it’s no wonder simple Google searches only turn up sources of the like. I did cite that the show is posted on it’s website of which the subject has no affiliation or part of. The subject of the article obviously was asked to be a guest, and after watching the show talked in detail about Hawaii. The subject was on, as cited, episode 271 meaning there were 270 before the one he appeared on. Hardly a number to shake a stick at? After looking in bit deeper, it appears Paul Thurrott was on the very same show episode 277. Have you seen Paul Thurrott’s Wikipedia article? I would contend that a show that has broadcasted 277 episodes, that has over One Million views, and has had other guests that pass the notable threshold is more than non-notable and should not be used as a cause to delete this article. Now all that's left is the question of the subject of this article as being notable. All the reasons used against the inclusion of this article have all seemed to be used to support the notion that the subject of this article is not notable. As I tried to explain I feel that all the arguments use against don’t hold water and thus don’t prove the articles subject as not notable. If simple popularity, results on Google, discrediting a show without looking deeper than search results, labeling things as unheard of because it’s not a worldwide household name, an article not having hundreds of people clamoring to contribute, or deciding its easier to propose deletion rather than help edit, is evidence that an article is not notable than we will have to simple agree to disagree. --RR4PREZ (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)