This article was nominated for deletion on 5 February 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Golf, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Golf-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GolfWikipedia:WikiProject GolfTemplate:WikiProject GolfGolf
I would like to have an open discussion about the importance of this page. Ron Prichard has been an important part of preserving the great works of golf course architects such as Donald Ross, Seth Raynor, A.W. Tillinghast, Willie Park, Jnr., William Flynn, and others. His work has been recognized on numerous occasions and he has the awards to show for it. The site is still being designed (it will probably take a few days), and therefore is still missing much vital information. But I can assure you that without Ron Prichard these classic courses would be lost to history. That is why I think he deserves a space on Wikipedia. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneybags15 (talk • contribs)
I've added a {{hangon}} to this page. First off Moneybags15, you need to stop reverting the Speedy delete edits. Second it appears that your drafting the page in it's main namespace has been taken as spam you should probably use a subpage of the talk namespace like /draft to draft the page. I don't personally know the notability Ron Prichard so if this isn't enough to save the page then so be it. Also in contest to the nn-autobio I have seen no evidence that this is an autobio to begin with.TehSpud (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ron the phrase "this site" above may be just loose wording or may indicate a misconception on your part: Wikipedia is not Myspace. Please create your own website somewhere else. If the AFD decision is "keep", then: add a link here to your website; reduce the design philosophy section to one sentence and reduce the list of courses to those that already have Wikipedia articles. (And if you don't do those edits, I will do them for you!) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you're jumping to conclusions, I can with almost full certainty say that Moneybags15 is not Ron Prichard. If you check the credits on Image:0529prichard2.jpg it is "Self Made" Authored by "David Kubica". Although the argument that the article is being made by someone close to Ron can still be made. TehSpud (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The words my were in the article becasue I have been working off of an autobiography composed by Ron Prichard himself. The image is "Self Made" because I have attempted to post images in the past, and, even though I had permission and gave credit, the image was still taken down. I am a friend of Ron Prichard and I am also an avid golfer, however, I do not see why that should affect the notability of this page? I do still need to post the plethora of awards that ha has achieved, number of famous golf courses he has designed, and more famous events that have been held at his courses if that makes any difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.24.61 (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Moneybags15: (who I presume was at the other end of that last IP user comment): See, that's the thing. No, you don't need to post those things, and if you do you will almost certainly be ensuring the article's deletion. Already, the article reads like MOS:PUFFERY. It completely lacks the neutral point of view expected of a Wikipedia article about any subject. Reading it gives a strong impression that the article was written by someone with ties to Richard and an interest in portraying him in the best light possible — because it was. That's not how Wikipedia works. There's a reason we advise people that Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.
If you wish to continue contributing to Wikipedia, that's great! If you wish to continue contributing to this article, for starters I strongly advise you to familiarize yourself with the entirety of WP:BLP. Then you should also review the the conflict-of-interest policy. Based on the rules, even though you may not be a paid editor, you are an editor with ties to the article subject. By our rules, that means (a) you should probably declare said association on your own user page, and on this Talk page for the Prichard article, and (b) you need to consider stepping away from directly contributing to this particular article (due to the COI stemming from your attachments to the subject), and instead propose edits on the talk page for other editors, where neutral editors can evaluate and incorporate them (if they find that the proposed edits meet Wikipedia's content policies).
If I haven't yet given you pause regarding this article, let me throw one more hurdle your way: Wikipedia discourages relying on primary sources exclusively or substantially, requiring that any information sourced to them be further supported by independent secondary sources. It's part of that whole neutrality thing we're so hung up about. Using an autobiography of Prichard as a source is effectively the same as using Ron Prichard himself as a source — it tends to result in an autobiographical article, and we don't do that here. FeRDNYC (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
