This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 October 20.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. While there may be reasons for the subject to request this deletion, there are reliable sources that establish his notability. An article needing to be cleaned up and/or monitored for IP edits is a reason to protect it and or/monitor it, not delete it. This AfD has been relisted and subject to some controversy but when it comes down to the end, there is no consensus here to delete. Numerically, keep outweighs delete, but both sides present their reasons, especially regarding notability and privacy. What this close comes down to is that BLP issues (which don't seem to be prsent) can be solved by vigilant monitoring and sourcing. There is no way to make him non-notable since consensus is that he meets the standards for notability. TravellingCari 02:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Ross (consultant)[edit]

For a year and a half now I have made a standing offer to nominate Wikipedia biographies of living persons for courtesy deletion upon two conditions: I receive a credible request directly from the subject, and the subject must not be notable enough to have a biography entry in any reliable encyclopedia, including specialty encyclopedias. The biographies of living persons noticeboard and reliable sources noticeboard have been unable to resolve the problems surrounding Mr. Ross's biography. It is my understanding that he has also contacted OTRS without improvement to the dilemma. Mr. Ross has given me permission to quote from his email request for courtesy deletion:

I would like my biography removed from the Wikipedia Web site. The entry about me in Wikipedia is used by cult [his term] members and others who wish to attack me.
Recent additions… is [sic] taken from unreliable sources…and contains false statements and/or misleading statements selectively quoted without any meaningful historical context for the purpose of character assassination. This…reflects poorly on Wikipedia and supports the growing criticism that the Web site is often biased…
Please see if you can have it removed.

So requesting (first choice) deletion, or (second choice) merge/redirect to deprogramming. For the record, I have no opinion about Mr. Ross himself, his beliefs, or his career. Having also been the nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd), it is at least a remote possibility that Mr. Ross may someday agree with Mr. Finkelstein's thesis that Wikipedia is a cult and attempt to deprogram me. This sort of irony is the occasional byproduct of acting upon a consistent principle. And regarding off-wiki encyclopedias, this is a passing mention rather than a distinct biographical entry. Durova^Charge! 00:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes WP:BIO and WP:RS and Mr. Ross is clearly notable in his niche field. If there is incorrect information in the article, Mr. Ross should point it out and any responsible editor will be happy to remove it. But to remove the entire article doesn't seem logical. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Ross has pointed it out to OTRS without success, and two noticeboards have also failed to resolve the problem. I agree things should work the way you describe. In this instance, apparently it hasn't. And Mr. Ross meets my standard offer for AFD nomination. Durova^Charge! 00:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Durova, please have Mr. Ross contact me (I am e-mail enabled through Wikipedia) and I will be very glad to help him remove information that is inaccurate while keeping the article up to the editorial standards required by the project. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Ecoleetage--this is a very notable person, and he's public enough without WP. I do agree that the last part of the article could do with some serious editing; it smacks a little of the kind of long list of critiques, not always equally relevant, that follows controversial people around (like Arundhati Roy, for instance. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Stubify. Looking down the list of sources, many of the negative ones appear to be from sources that are questionable at best. However, I also believe that there is enough coverage from reliable sources that he passes any notability bar. I'm sympathetic to Mr Ross (I have a great deal of respect for anyone that goes to such lengths to fight cults), but I do not believe that removing a bio just because the subject wishes it is a good way to build a complete, neutral encyclopædia. Stubifying will hopefully get rid of any of the material here that Mr Ross finds objectionable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep While it appears that some of the sources are biased to a particular POV (see the talk page), subject is still notable for more than one incident. If "better" sources can be adduced for the Scott case, fine. Nonetheless, the article as it stands seems to be reasonable NPOV. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there are some questionable sources, as the other editors have pointed out, there are also many reliable ones for this article to pass WP:BIO. AngelOfSadness talk 00:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is not notable enough to have a biographical entry in a print encyclopedia, and WP:BLP issues relating to inappropriate sources seem not to have been resolved. Cirt (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Wikipedia is not a print encyclopædia though, so I'm not sure why this is a relevant point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Fishkin, etc. Guidelines allow for discretion in borderline notability instances and the existence or absence of a biography entry in conventional encyclopedias is an easily verified threshold for that. Durova^Charge! 01:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Notable subject who has substantial media coverage(ie http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Rick+A.+Ross%22&btnG=Search&oe=utf-8&um=1&hl=en&ie=UTF-8}. Article does need severe cleaning out of un-sourced BLP, article fails NPOV(Only troublesome issues are brought up, not the hundred that he is consulted on and are successes), and troublesome sources need to be cleaned. Also, with the request from the subject, that's a strong case for removal to protect the project. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep- someone needs to be appointed to mind this page, and to lock it to all anonymous user names, so it can be purged of nonsense and attacks.JJJ999 (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone who makes a request like this should come forward with clean hands, and Ross does not: he maintains at least one attack site against those who disagree with him. [1] He is clearly notable, if for no other reason than the significant amount of third-party press coverage generated by his self-promotional efforts. He is a key figure in a significant federal court case. Despite being a convicted felon, he was reportedly an FBI resource regarding the Branch Davidians and their Waco compound. His account apparently differs substantially from other accounts, from the FBI and otherwise. I see nothing that would justify accepting uncritically Ross's claims of unusual abuse directed at someone so willingly engaged in a controversial field. Some of the spinoff articles appear to be quite overblown, though. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see why Ross having clean hands or not would influence either our editorial or ethical decisions. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of reliable, published sources for this individual. See, for instance, this Google Books search which shows several pages of hits for Ross's deprogramming activities alone. Here is a similar search on Google Scholar. Not all these books or articles are suitable sources for a BLP, but many of them are. There should be no problem with making this article compliant with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Semi-protection, and even full protection, could be used if problematic information kept being inserted. And I don't consider "opt-out" to be a viable rule on Wikipedia - especially not for people who are clearly significant public figures. It's not our job to help people stage-manage their Internet profiles. *** Crotalus *** 02:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mr Ross is quite notable enough in his field to merit inclusion. It goes without saying that the normal Wikipedia policies regarding the reliability of Sources, especially as they relate to BLP should be observed.

Comment Incidentally it strikes me as ironic that Ross should take the injured tone he does in light of the fact that his sites host numerous defamatory and unreliable accusations against other individuals made by anonymous and unaccountable contributors. DaveApter (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep is a clearly notable individual. Indeed, Google Books shows him as being discussed even in a variety of dead tree sources. Note that some of the google hits mentioned by other users above refer to other people by the same name. But more helpful google searches such as this, this and this show a large variety of sources including 73 different books. He's discussed in many sources which are clearly reliable such as the Encyclopedia of Religious Freedom- [2]. Moreover, given Ross's outspokeness he is clearly a willing public figure. As I've discussed before we should not generally apply courtesy deletions to willing public figures. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That link is noted and provided in the nomination. As a passing mention rather than a distinct entry, it would conceivably be an argument for the second choice of merge/redirect. Durova^Charge! 00:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD was incorrectly closed under SNOW and has been reversed. To ensure discussion is not stifled I am relisting this and resetting the clock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable, verifiable, and well-sourced. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable individual, and the incident involving Ross (Jason Scott case) that lead to the BLP/N and RS/N discussions mentioned by Durova is one of the most seminal in the history of the Anti-cult movement, "cult" deprogramming and possibly even the very study of New religious movements. To give you an example, historian Robert Ellwood remarked in 1997 (paraphrased by sociologist Jeffrey Kaplan) that the bankruptcy of the old Cult Awareness Network (a direct result of the Jason Scott case) "may represent the functional equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall for religious studies scholars. At last scholars could disengage in the 'cult-wars' and open a new chapter in the study of new religious movements (NRMs)." (Kaplan, Jeffrey. 1997. "Field Notes: Fall of the Wall?" Nova Religio 1(1):139-149). Ross is referenced in a huge number of scholarly articles and books related to NRMs, and the cult-wars. There is no reason why this entry can't be kept within the guidelines of BLP.PelleSmith (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable. However the article has attracted his critics beginning with the first stub, which was written by a follower of a group sometimes called "cult-like".[3] The majority of editors on the article still appear to be those who have strong points of view about new religious movements, and the article has been the target of axe-grinding. Given that history, WP as a community needs to make sure that the article is not skewed. The use of sources connected to the Church of Scientology, for example, is problematic. Maintaining neutrality on this a contentious BLP requires constant and consistent effort. If it gets too far out of whack it may have to be stubbed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Describing leading scholars such as James R. Lewis, David G. Bromley or Anson Shupe as "sources connected to the Church of Scientology" strikes me as way off-base. By that reckoning, Oxford University Press is a Scientology propaganda machine, because Lewis, Bromley and Shupe are among the people Oxford University Press call upon to write their standard reference works in this area. Jayen 466 04:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The case was intimately connected to the Church of Scientology. The article has been a stalking horse. And it still is, apparently. It currently contains hundreds of words that have nothing to do with Ross, and editors are edit warring to re-add that negative information to a BLP. That's a problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Suntag ☼ 23:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With so much reliable source material available for the topic and the subject's own efforts to place himself in the public eye, any BLP balancing in favor of deletion would require more significant real life problems than the ones listed in the nomination. The problems noted in the nomination can be addressed through ordinary editing and do not reflect badly on Wikipedia. On a related note, I don't think it was wise to give free modification rights of his photo to his enimies. -- Suntag ☼ 23:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article has problems, such as over-reliance some iffy sources, a mega-size stub section with a main article which is in danger of being a POV fork, notability certainly isn't one of them. AndroidCat (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless a living person is notable to the extent that Wikipedia would be considered a subpar encyclopedia with the article, the article should be deleted at their request. Yes, under the letter of the law, he might have received significant media coverage, but the guideline is just that, a guideline. As stated at the top of the guideline page, the guideline should be treated with common sense and the common exception. Where else would a common exception apply if not to a case like this? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a living person is notable to the extent that Wikipedia would be considered a subpar encyclopedia with[out] the article ... and who makes that call? ~~Clearly, in your mind, its not all the people voting keep.~~PelleSmith (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The people at this afd should make the correct call. They are voting keep based on misconceptions regarding wp:afd and wp:bio. See this little rant. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's an answer to my question. I want to know who decides whether or not the encyclopedia is considered "subpar" because a BLP is left out of it. Who does that ... who makes that call?PelleSmith (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone here is of the opinion that an encyclopedia without a Rick Ross bio is a subpar encyclopedia. They are just applying the notability standard suggested at wp:bio without taking anything else into consideration. But of course it should be the editors at this afd who should be the making the decision. Who else? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not what you initially wrote at all. You wrote that at their request any such BLP should be deleted, implying that it should be obvious if without the BLP the encyclopedia would be "subpar" or not. Are you now saying at their request we do what we usually do and hold an AfD and establish consensus before we delete it? By the way I do think the encyclopedia would be "subpar" if we deleted this entry based upon that rationale. Sure its not like getting rid of Earth, or Homo sapiens, but where do you draw the line and when do you stop deleting entries because someone associated with the subject matter would rather not let our patrons learn about it? If you want to suggest a criteria for something like this it better have some good guidelines. Common sense isn't all its cracked up to be.PelleSmith (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the ambiguity. Let me try again: Editors should !vote to delete bios at the subject's request when the subject's missing bio will not cause this encyclopedia to be considered "subpar". In other words, the missing bio will not create a significant void in this encyclopedia. It seems like you agree that this article would fit under the aforementioned criteria but you are only worried about the Slippery slope. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am worried about the slippery slope but I'm more worried about people who don't understand why removing a certain entry is detrimental to the encyclopedia (when it is) making the call. While there are plenty of subjects on Wikipedia that everyone has some knowledge of, most of our content consists of subjects that are much more specialized than that. After all, Wikipedia isn't a collection of the most popular topics of mass cultural discourse, it is an encyclopedia of knowledge about a wide variety of subjects. I actually agree with Jayen (below) that removing this BLP would make us sub-par, and no offense, but I don't necessarily expect you (or most people) to simply understand why based upon your existing knowledge base - like you would should I suggest deleting Albert Einstein. But that's why we have guidelines like WP:N, so that without having an extensive pre-existing knowledge of the subject matter we can determine through some research if in fact the subject is notable enough to be a positive addition to the encyclopedia. In this case it takes mere minutes of searching academic databases and/or the internet at large to determine notability. I am of the firm belief that an editor without some specialist knowledge in the subject area of an entry that clearly meets WP:N has no business suggesting that we can delete the entry without damage to our quality.PelleSmith (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Wikipedia is all about, a collaborative effort by all. There is no subject that it off-limits to anyone. Besides, this subject, and especially the notability of this person, is not something esoteric or even specialized in which a half-intelligent person can't give their opinion. Your opinion of your fellow editors is a bit problematic. You seem to be saying that we must have hard and fast rules because editors can't be allowed to make common sense or intelligent decisions. I have been around afd's for a while. Although I don't agree with all of their outcomes (including this one), I can say that most of the results are reasonable results.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last response. See below. Never suggested anything was off-limits, but we work via policy and guideline here because your "common sense" may not be my "common sense". AfDs are not votes either. If I make a "common sense" argument that has no basis in policy it should technically not have any weight against arguments soundly based in policy and available guidelines. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All notability issues are guidelines, not policies, and the distinction is important. Guidelines are supposed to be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. You seem to agree that afd's are not votes, but you only got it half right. They are neither votes nor are they competitions to see who can spew out the correct abbreviated wikilinked guideline. There is only one policy that is pertinent to this discussion (which you conveniently ignore) and that is Wikipedia:Consensus. This policy explicitly states that "Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it." This is the most fundamental and seminal policy here at Wikipedia, an encyclopedia created by a collaborative effort. Applying this policy to afd means that afd discussions are neither votes nor wikilink competitions. They are discussions in which editors come to conclusions regarding specific articles while weighing - yes - their own common sense, wikipedia's notability guidelines, and the overall circumstances surrounding the article. Obviously, your common sense differs from my common sense, but that's the beauty of Wikipedia. I give my argument, you give yours, someone else gives a third argument, and other editors decide whose they like best. My argument obviously had not achieved great acceptance, but that's fine. You win some and you lose some. Whether this article stays or goes is not that important in the big picture. What's most important is that we all understand how we are building this encyclopedia and not get hung up with our abbreviated wikilinks. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Any encyclopedia that allows any individual who meets the agreed-upon notability standards an incontestable veto to exclude themselves is a worthless encyclopedia; The removal of any article on this basis makes it a subpar encyclopedia. In my experience, and this article is no exception, individuals who have sought to demand this power are people who do whatever they can to be included in the media but only want to be covered under their terms and conditions. No matter how much care and effort is spent on crafting a neutral biography that covers these individuals using reliably and verifiably sourced material, the article does not -- and will never -- meet their standards. Acceding to these demands is done at the detriment of the entire encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has a very high-profile Internet presence; given that we are an Internet encyclopedia, absence of an article on him would make us sub-par, in my eyes. The article has many problems and does need work, but the new material on the Jason Scott case that appears to have caused offence is better sourced than much of the rest of the article. Jayen 466 04:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People don't get to choose whether they're notable or not; if the article is bad, improve it; if the article doesn't cite sources for a sentence, remove it. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest delete I agree with Brewcrewer to a certain extent, but if this must be kept, it should be rewritten carefully to reflect the issues the subject is upset about. A ni Mate 08:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With due respect to users PelleSmith and Brewcrewer, I'm not sure that the overall quality of Wikipedia has anything to do with this debate. The case should be considered on its merits in isolation - and there seems to be a reasonable argument for retaining the article. Isn't the 'quality of Wikipedia' argument effectively a form of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well in essence I agree, which is why I asked the initial question of who makes the call. Our guidelines, like WP:N circumvent these types of questions for good reason. I'll take the hint and stop adding to the discussion :).PelleSmith (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article's subject has voluntarily made himself a subject of longstanding commentary on important public issues, and as such is fairly clearly notable, and will inevitably be the subject of strong opinions. His career involving the matters he is known for has lasted several decades: he is not a person who became famous as a result of a single incident. He is not entitled to removal of his Wikipedia article by request simply because it repeats statements made by his critics. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a public figure. One who doesn't like the coverage, and therefore wants it deleted. If we do that we're giving a veto to everyone, and our coverage of living people will be reduced to tributes to their merits. Another look at the article by previously uninvovled people is the way to deal with the content questions. DGG (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The wikipedia has something like 2 million articles, so it is going to have lots of perfectly fine articles on topics that aren't covered at other encyclopedias. So I question whether seeing if a biography subject is covered elsewhere is a worthwhile standard. If Rick Ross hadn't claimed he had tried to get the OTRS team to address inaccuracies, without success, we wouldn't have had this nomination, correct? Well User:Ecoleetage took on the responsibility of addressing Mr Ross's legitimate accuracy concerns. Why shouldn't we regard the justification of this nomination to have been dealt with? (Thanks Ecoleetage!) Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ross, his work and his eponymous Institute have all achieved notability. The current article, though it needs some editing for balance of various viewpoints and much patroling work, brings together much of interest scattered through other areas of Wikipedia and plays a role in furthering knowledge and openness. If people misuse the data in an article, that provides an incentive to enhance and better our content and referencing -- it does not of necessity encourage the obscuratanism of deleting. If those involved genuinely and strongly dislike having an article on Ross the person, we could switch much of the content to an article on the Rick Ross Institute. But deletion of this material would leave a hole in our encyclopedia. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but review in one month. If, after that time, the long-term problem of severely biased editing is not fixed (either by protection or by self-policing from those who are keen to keep the article), then it should be deleted as a person of marginal notability with a clear preference for not having an article and where we cannot be relied on to keep the article within policy. I would see Ross' notability as being on a par with Daniel Brandt or Seth Finkelstein, definitely at the margins. If enough people are determined to make the article good then let them try and we'll see how they do, but keeping bad articles because we agree with the bad content (which is the suspicion this article consistently raises) is not acceptable. AGF and all that, it sounds like people want to fix it, but the license should not be indefinite. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs work to improve tone and balance but notability is established using reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article is notable, and has been subject of quite a few mentions over the years, both in the media and in reputable books on the topic. If the content of the article is not to his liking, that is certainly no reason to delete it. If his complaints against about the content are well-founded, they ought to be addressed. (I don't know enough about the topic to say if they are or not.) --SJK (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a related COI/N thread, at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Rick_Ross_.28consultant.29. Jayen 466 16:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable person, and controversial public figure. We don't delete articles because the subject doesn't like them. --John Nagle (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.