Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Otto (park ranger)

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. John254 01:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Otto (park ranger)

Utterly non-notable park ranger. No WP:RS whatsoever presented, though that's really beside the point since notability is not even asserted, therefore there's nothing to source to begin with. The article was previously extensively edited by a guy who's published a non-notable book about the non-notable park ranger with notorious vanity press Xlibris. He keeps re-inserting his personal spam into the article each time he edits it. User has received the usual warning for WP:COI, so let's hope he doesn't start warring on it. Qworty (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are actually a plethora of sources that assert his importance. More than satisfies the primary notability criterion. The fact that someone has, a century later, written a vanity press book about him should in no way prejudice us against the century during which many reliable sources were written covering his life and major accomplishment, that is, the founding of Colorado National Monument. --Dhartung | Talk 05:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous sources turn up when searched, including books and newspaper articles. Prior to being removed, the article listed two references: Kania, Alan J. John Otto of Colorado National Monument Roberts-Rinehart Publisher and Kania, Alan J. John Otto: Trials and Trails University Press of Colorado. It mentioned that the third edition of the John Otto of Colorado National Monument was being reprinted through Xlibris. I presume that this is where the confusion over "vanity press" came from. - Bilby (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I agree. Qworty's coming down hard on this guy, but it's cited as a source in several of the works I've looked at. --Dhartung | Talk 09:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability seems to be established within the article. COI issues need to be discussed on the talk page (as the tag says). I agree that the publisher of the "non-notable book" shouldn't be allowed to spam the page but, the subject of the article itself meets notability criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reasons discussed above. I have also looked over the article, and as it has been heavily edited and sourced since the self-promotional edits occured, I see no reason to keep the COI tag there, so I removed it. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For all the reasons listed above. This is more Quorty hyperbolic nonsense. 72.241.99.251 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Express whatever opinion you like on an AfD or elsewhere, but please read WP:NPA, and do not blank a page when other users warn you about it [1]. Qworty (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Forgive my lack of knowledge, but where does it state we are not supposed/permitted to blank our own talk pages? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment Can I remind everyone please, that this is an AFD - take anything outside the scope of an AFD to Talk pages. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:30, 2 May 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.