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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Robert Jackson[edit]

Alan Robert Jackson (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)

A successful businessman, but not presented nor referenced as having notability in a Wikipedia sense. Appears to be a memorial. See WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Australian source is the only one that contributes to notability. Could not find any other sources. I tried Trove and Google but did not find significant coverage. ([1]). Does not pass WP:GNG.

Also, for future editors, Robert Alan Jackson is not the same person as Alan Robert Jackson. Carpimaps (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It is premature to delete this draft article as it is only in the earliest of drafts and editing phases. It would be inappropriate to remove this. Moreover, there is sizable information about Alan Robert Jackson, just not very accessible on the internet, before coming to irrational conclusions, it is best to first properly research the man beyond Google. Carey3146 (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • So WP:DRAFTIFY it then Boneymau (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Boneymau Should the closer of this discussion interpret this as your opinion, please? Or do you offer a different formal opinion, and just offer this as a suggestion to Carey3146? They should note that it is generally considered to be disruptive to move an article under deletion discussion to the Draft: namespace, but that it may be a valid outcome off the discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Carey3146 You are entitled to offer a formal opinion that the article be moved to Draft: space. Please Do not move it unilaterally before this discussion is closed 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Those suggesting Draftification should note that the article being discussed for deletion is likely to be a copy and paste move, and that the draft from which it was copied and pasted exists. An editor has requested a history merge. This suggests that draftification has little or no point 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks notable to me. Award winning businessman: won Australia's Business person of the Year in 1985 and 1989 Source: The Australia which describes him as a "true legend in business"; awarded the Order_of_Australia#Officer_(AO) in 1991. Was chair of Australian Trade Commission for a number of years (Google search: "Austrade" "Alan Jackson"); here's another article CEO of the year: The man from Melbourne Piecesofuk (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Piecesofuk - article could do with some cleanup, but Jackson seems notable enough if he headed up a Commonwealth agency. Austrim Nylex (the Australian arm) was at one time one of Australia's largest textile companies. Jackson was also on the Reserve Bank Board for a while too. Deus et lex (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not show notability, not enough RS. NMasiha (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it feels like you've paid no attention to the comments above, done a Google search or in fact done anything to even justify your comment. Can you please reconsider? Deus et lex (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it possible to change the name of ‘Alan Robert Jackson’ to ‘Alan Jackson (businessman)’ instead? 101.181.73.28 (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Carey3146 (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep With over 20 references to this article and plenty of information and proof. This article is well and truly deserving of permanently staying on Wikipedia. Carey3146 (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carey3146, you can only cast one "vote" so I'm striking the second one. Also, now that you have an account, please do not edit logged out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am persuaded of notability per Piecesofuk. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With being the head of the Trade Commission and winning the Order of Australia and the extra sources as cited above, should be an easy keep. Oaktree b (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: To me the references that are contained in the article show that the subject meets WP:N. Having an AO and the numerous other positions Jackson held implies WP:SIGNIFICANCE. Further the "CEO of the year: The man from Melbourne" source included above by @ Piecesofuk shows WP:SIGCOV by a reliable source, independent of the subject, and isn't just a trivial mention. - GA Melbourne (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've done some cleanup on the sourcing to get a better handle on what we're dealing with here. I'm leaning towards keep per GNG, but there are some problems with how Carey has attempted to cite things, such as copying bare urls to publications' websites that require subscription access. This just returns a page which says "Click here to subscribe to The Australian" etc. which is not helpful to anyone without a subscription and doesn't show us what the underlying article actually is (Carey, if you see this, please ad info like the title of the specific news article you are citing, the date it was published, and the person who wrote it, if possible). There are also some failed verification issues with those and few other sources. It might take additional cleanup or at least a more clear presentation of the sources (as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP) for us to be sure what counts as significant coverage and what doesn't. Someone with a subscription to Australian newspapers might be helpful. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2023 (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.