Talk:Rodger Krouse

Deletion?

Response to proposal for deletion. It seems that the process for objecting to a deletion has changed? I just created this article. There are many references to Rodger Krouse if one does a simple google search. Is not Wikipedia a collaborative effort? Do I have to create a perfectly complete article from the get-go or am I able just lay the foundation out and let others chime in. Should we not let an article linger for a little bit before we delete it?Patapsco913 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles can be proposed for deletion at any time, so yes, as stated clearly in the guidelines, it needs to show notability with reliable independent sources. Not just a result of a Google search. There are even stricter standards for living people, due to potential liability concerns. We area all volunteers, so no, you cannot assume that someone else will clean up your half-finished article. This one is not as bad as most first articles that get deleted. Please be patient and work on it if you like to keep it around. For example, one of my pet peeves is writing the present tense. This makes it seem like a cut-n-paste from a corporate promotional bio. If you have sources that say something happened to this person at a certain time, then say it happened (past tense). Otherwise articles go stale and have old information ("currently", "presently" etc. do not belong. see WP:DATED for example. Assume someone will read this five or ten years in the future. W Nowicki (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

well I guess I am not used to things getting proposed for deletion so quickly outside of the normal process especially when it is obvious one has made a good faith effort. As I read Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion. "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected." Anyhow, this guy is on CNBC at least once a month. I have posted three video interviews with him on the page.Patapsco913 (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Patapsco. I didn't even read the article itself, and don't know who its about, but agree with every word of his two posts here. Where's the vote? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The delete discussion, as per the process, is in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rodger_Krouse. The claim above about "outside of the normal process" is hard to understand. We are trying to follow the normal process. I even tried to improve the article in an attempt to save it, but then Patapsco913 reverted my changes and re-introduced both dated and promotional language and single paragraph sections. That kind of action can be a sign of lack of the good faith assumption. If you disagree with the guidelines for dated and promotional language then you are free to argue your case and try to change the consensus. Otherwise this seems like a case of Ownership which also makes it less likely that others will help you. W Nowicki (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Well in my opinion, the considerate process in this case should be to propose it for deletion but not using WP:PROD which states that "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected" which is why the discussion is here on the talk page and not where it should be on the article for deletion page. The format headings I used are pretty standard with biographies. Anyhow, since the article was up for deletion I figured I would preserve what is there and it was edited while I was in the midst of adding additional information. I am not sure what I used that is dated or promotional: the Businessweek reference listing his directorships is current. The fact that his firm has had bankruptcies is definitely not promotional (especially for someone who invests other people's money); perhaps the number of assets or employees that they manage is...but then that does go to notability which is the question at issue not the style or format.Patapsco913 (talk)

Wikipedia:Guide to deletion "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." Patapsco913 (talk)

Yes, and as I keep trying to say, the process was followed and there is now a more in-depth discussion. The whole point about dated language is that even if it is "current" in July 2013, someone might be reading it in 2018. It might not be current then which is what matters. If you say "he became CEO in XXX" then that will be true at any time in the future. Please do read the guideline on dated language if this is not clear. Promotional language for example is the quote on "the key to Sun's success..." and glowingly talking about "very successful growing the business " etc. As for sections, putting single paragraphs into a section gives the impression the subject more weight than it is due. This is a minor point, these kind of issues might make it more likely to keep the article. W Nowicki (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)