Talk:Scott A. Jones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-12-17. The result of the discussion was Merge to ChaCha (search engine).

This article was nominated for deletion on August 15, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: Needs references to lift it to B-class. --Bookworm857158367 05:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC) (edit)

	Indianapolis Portal Scott A. Jones is within the scope of WikiProject Indianapolis, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of metropolitan Indianapolis, Indiana and related subjects in the Wikipedia. Template Usage • Change Patrol • Articles Requested • Become a Member • Project Talk
Start	This article has been rating as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.

Contents 1 Who Wrote This? 2 Nominated 3 Spam? 4 Massive edit following 2nd AfD 5 Patents

[edit] Who Wrote This?

I'm sorry but this sounds like Scott or maybe his PR flack wrote it. Wasn't this supposed to be merged with ChaCha? God, it needs to go away... WiccaWeb 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominated

I agree, nominated under notoriety, although it might qualify as spam as well. Totally self-promoting. 74.129.238.162 17:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam?

Looking at the edit history, looks like 66.170.165.82 actually belongs to his PR agency, so WiccaWeb is correct about who posted this. Should it just be deleted as spam / advertising?

74.129.230.30 05:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. It's not noteworthy and in total violation of Wikipedia biography policy. Since it's already been nominated for deletion and was supposed to be folded into ChaCha, how does one notify an Admin to get this Spam taken care of? WiccaWeb 05:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it should have been deleted 6 months ago. It's been long enough that I don't know if I can just delete it. I proposed deletion, so it can go in 5 days. 74.129.230.30 20:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massive edit following 2nd AfD

I don't think there's a dispute on this person's notability, notwithstanding the fact that the self-promotion was nauseating. I have massively edited this article. jddphd (talk · contribs) 04:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Found a couple links too jddphd (talk · contribs) 04:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patents

Is the section on the patents this guy holds noteworthy in the context of Wikipedia's format and purpose? I don't recall ever seeing a patent run-down for a bio. I don't think it adds any value to the bio, just more self-promotion. Honestly, are we going to start running the lists of this sort of thing for every entrepreneur? It's excessive and serves no real purpose for an encyclopedic biography. Unless their are major objections, it should be removed. WiccaWeb 15:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree (only somewhat though) about how the information is presented. Maybe the laundry list isn't the right way to display it. But I completely disagree with the implication that they should be removed in their entirety. Patent ownership unquestionably contributes to his notability, particularly as it's for something as ubiquitous and influential as voicemail. Actually, if you read the comments from the AfD his patent ownership forms the very backbone of his notability. I don't see how it detracts from the "encyclopedicness" of the style at all.

At any rate, this was my reasoning for keeping them in when I copy-edited this article (which now looks to be headed for a "KEEP" at this point from the 2nd AfD). I also completely disagree with the "if we do this for him we'll have to do it for everyone" reasoning too. Believe me I place great value on consistency but in this case I find that a spurious conclusion.

In short, I strongly believe the patent references need keeping, but I can't say I'd argue with making their presentation more compact. jddphd (talk · contribs) 15:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WiccaWeb is right. It is excessive, and this entire article is self-promotion. It's embarrassing that this "article" is allowed to remain in its current form. Shame on you for supporting it. Quite frankly it indicates to me a personal relationship, because there is no other reason to support such an out of place anomaly in general Wiki practices. 131.30.121.23 18:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's just keep the ones for which he is noted. Rklawton 19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)