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. Subject passes WP:AUTHOR, per discussion. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Pearse

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Guy Pearse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've now taken a look at the sources by Goldsztajn. The reviews of his two books do appear to be independent and should count towards WP:AUTHOR, which calls for 'multiple independent periodical articles or reviews'. I have no problem changing my original !vote. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Canniford, Robin (June 2013). "Book Review: Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams". Journal of Macromarketing. 33 (2): 172–173. doi:10.1177/0276146713476039.
  2. ^ Readfearn, Graham (8 October 2012). "Greenwash: tackling banks, brewers on their clean green spin". Crikey.
  3. ^ Charles, Willian (November 2012). "Review: Greenwash". Adelaide Review. Archived from the original on 2013-05-01.
  4. ^ Flannery, Tim (11 August 2007). "High and Dry". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 3 March 2021.
  5. ^ Brown, Matt (October 2007). "After 11 years, is there anyone who hasn't been a 'senior Liberal advisor'?" (PDF). Institute of Public Affairs Review.
  6. ^ Button, John (July 2007). "Guy Pearse's High and Dry [Book Review]". The Monthly. Archived from the original on 15 July 2007.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of comments, not much consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that these two links do not change my judgement of the subject. They are both bios from websites he has contributed to and cannot, therefore, be considered independent. They are not the kind of coverage called for by WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not completely correct. The ABC is a state broadcaster, akin to the CBC or the BBC; its basis of independence is legally constituted. I would agree that in itself, the bio is not an indicator of notability, but the source can be considered reliable and the contents can form *part* of considerations as to whether the subject is notable. The point is, the ABC source itself should not be rejected out of hand, just used appropriately. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I now realise that I may have misunderstood Aoziwe's point. Yes, of course, the content of the sources may point towards the subject meeting some aspect of an SNG. I felt that Aoziwe was arguing that these bios help the subject reach GNG (perhaps this is what they are arguing?). Modussiccandi (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct - not by themselves but they do contribute. (I did not claim WP:ANYBIO.) Aoziwe (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2021 (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.
More