Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David E. Ritch
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Deathphoenix 01:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
David E. Ritch[edit]
- Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Darkcore 04:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- How come an intelligent fellow like this missed the part about "please don't write about yourself?" Speaking of "please:" Please delete this with the proverbial extreme prejudice. - Lucky 6.9 05:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- He didn't write about himself. A quick google shows that Travis Ritch is his son. [1] Average Earthman 10:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, sounds notable, especially within the context of the Cayman Islands. "(firm he founded) was at one point the second-largest Caymanian-owned firm on the island.", received "Quincentennial Lifetime Achievement Award for Law", and an OBE. Kappa 09:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, just under the bar of notability, possible family vanity. Megan1967 03:02, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. All of you who have just voted delete, please do the following: 1) Open a new browser window 2) Navigate to http://www.yahoo.com 3) Type in the following: "David Ritch Cayman Islands" 4) Proceed to scroll through the pages of content about him. Had anyone else written this article, it would not be considered for deletion. Take off your butcher hats, please. I am very proud of my family but this alone is no grounds to delete the article. Anyone who earns a lifetime achievement award is notable. Call the LGB or the Governor up and ask them if they know who he is. He's represented the Cayman Islands at the EU Court of First Instance for heaven's sake. I know this all looks very self-important to a discerning panel of editors like yourselves but I ask you not to frame this in the sense that it is just a son putting his father on a pedestal - someone would have written this article eventually. In other words - exercise restraint and reconsider please. Travisritch 18:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If "someone would have written this article eventually", then you should allow that someone else to do so. Wikipedia articles must present a neutral point of view. We have learned that hard way that this is very difficult - to the point of being impossible - when a person writes about themselves or when a close family member writes the article. I believe that Wikipedia:No autobiographies applies. Reluctant delete. Rossami (talk) 23:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. All of this is publicly available, factual, and provable with no more than a quick internet search. You will also note that there is not a single statement of opinion in the article. I would ask you to consider what I have written and not who has written it. Also I would note that Darkcore, who nominated this article for deletion, has been quarreling with me for quite some time on another matter. You were stressing the importance of a NPOV? Travisritch 01:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Umm... this has nothing to do with old, old discussions (which I would hardly call quarreling) regarding the Upper Canada College article, where you were quick to infuse your pro-UCC propaganda. By the way, I was not the only person involved there. Travisritch, you really need to get over yourself. Darkcore 01:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You only have to look at the Talk page for the 2004 article to see that a number of people find the heavy use of titles to be POV. Also phrases such as 'His accomplishments have earned him great respect in the islands' tend to be viewed as too subjective for an encyclopedia. Personally, I feel receiving an OBE is a sign of notability, but I'd need the article to be edited for tone in some sections. Average Earthman 11:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. All of this is publicly available, factual, and provable with no more than a quick internet search. You will also note that there is not a single statement of opinion in the article. I would ask you to consider what I have written and not who has written it. Also I would note that Darkcore, who nominated this article for deletion, has been quarreling with me for quite some time on another matter. You were stressing the importance of a NPOV? Travisritch 01:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Granted, although that isn't really a matter of opinion. You will find similar phrasing in many sources if you use a search engine from "Mr. Ritch is a self-styled known quantity when it comes to holding public office" to "one of the best commercial lawyers on the island." If it has to be edited to remain, I'd be willing to do that. Also, encyclopedias need to provide current and complete information. Just because he is a private citizen does not mean the use of his post-nominal titles is POV. Are we approaching a concensus here? Travisritch 01:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No. A Google search of "David E. Ritch" brings 29 hits, at least 4 of which are from Wikipedia. A similar search of "David Ritch" "Cayman Islands" reveals less than 100 hits, most of which are lists (and not articles about him). In any other situation, that would fall under the bar of notability, regardless of how well regarded he may be in the Cayman Islands. Doing a search on my own lawyer revealed more hits than that, and he does not have a Wikipedia article (nor would I feel compelled to write one about him). Darkcore 02:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- A powerful argument, to be sure. But, a gaping hole emerges: by that logic, ANYONE who hits high is a notable person! Notability is not defined by clout. Does Paris Hilton have an OBE? That is the whole point of the Honours system and more specifically the Order of the British Empire, which was created to honour notable private citizens across the Commonwealth. And what's with the perjorative comment about Cayman? It has world famous tourism, prominence amongst the remaining colonies, the 5th largest financial center in the world, etc. etc. Lastly, I'd just like to say, that this page is by far much less nonsensical, better written, and more deserving of being kept than the large majority of articles posted on VfD. Travisritch 02:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- My comment was hardly pejorative; calm down. We aren't talking about the Cayman Islands anyway. I personally don't feel that his receiving an OBE makes him deserving of an article, but that is my own opinion. Darkcore 03:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If "someone would have written this article eventually", then you should allow that someone else to do so. Wikipedia articles must present a neutral point of view. We have learned that hard way that this is very difficult - to the point of being impossible - when a person writes about themselves or when a close family member writes the article. I believe that Wikipedia:No autobiographies applies. Reluctant delete. Rossami (talk) 23:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid this falls under my notability bar, and as such, delete. Radiant! 10:24, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
He received some 550 letters of congratulation for that, most of which said it was the best deserved honour the person had ever seen. It was the only investiture singled out for publication in the newspaper, even pictures of the Governor's CMG were not in the paper and he has an article on wikipedia chronicling his career. If you understood the amount of change that has gone on in Cayman in the last 25 years, you would know why the work he has done for the community and the Government is considered so significant. Gave up millions of dollars of his professional time to do this work. There are articles which are much more useless that you could be spending your time on. A lot of these VfD articles are bands without a record! Anyway, I'm really tiring of arguing with you conventionalist hawks. You prowl the VfD page, chanting and rechanting 'what Wikipedia is not,' and defining notability from your basement, and I'm just tired of it. I resign the fate of this discussion to the admin who reviews it. Travis Ritch
Neutral. I suspect it could be rewritten as much less of a vanity piece/CV and focus on what establishes notability. Try starting with a strong lead paragraph. If you think you've salvaged it, drop me a note and I might vote to keep it. The way it reads now, it looks just below the bar. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:36, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)- Weak keep. Now there is something there to suggest why this person is notable. Unfortunately, it still reads too much like a CV and there is not enough about the notable aspects of this person. Still, I think there is enough there to establish potential for an encycolopedia article, so keep on the same basis we would keep a good stub. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:39, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Update Ok, I've changed it. Tell me where I went wrong. Travisritch 18:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Rewrite first. This article needs to be greatly changed by an outside user in order to keep a NPOV. Travisritch, we understand your beliefs about your father. However, right now as the article stands, it seems like a brag/vanity page. So, if someone is willing to change, and make it sutiable for inclusion, then I shall vote a Keep. If the article is not rewritten, then Delete.Bratsche(talk) 02:18, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.