Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Reader

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete. Claimed sourcing has been effectively debunked Spartaz Humbug! 08:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Reader

edit

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

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

Subject does not meet notability criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Sources are not about him, they only mention him. I am unable to find multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject significantly. ... discospinster talk 22:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source."

In this case, at least two of the sources are substantive articles about the subject, not merely passing mentions - full length articles in The National (a national newspaper in Abu Dhabi) and Forbes, both within the last month. On that basis notability criteria would appear to be met? User:WikiUser249325 talk 09:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Forbes article is not by a Forbes journalist, it's an independent contributor. ... discospinster talk 19:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Noted. I was not aware Wikipedia set different levels of notability based on employment status of journalist - my understanding however is that there is still an independent editorial process for contributors to go through at Forbes. In any event, the 'news' link on this AFD shows several pages of various results on the subject including leading professional journals and national newspapers that aren't Forbes - several of which have a lead image of the subject or his book - and hence might be worth reviewing in light of the concerns around notability. User:WikiUser249325 talk 10:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says Forbes articles by contributors are unreliable.— Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 21:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6 — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 21:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Of the sources listed above, only [1] can be considered reliable. #2 doesn't mention Reader, #3 is unreliable per WP:RS/P, #4 is not substantial information, #5 I cannot find a masthead on the website and the author accepts requests for reviews (so I'm not sure it's independent), and #6 is a book link but I can't preview the book so I don't know if it is substantial coverage that fulfils notability requirements. The sources in the article also don't pass WP:GNG because they are passing mentions, interviews with Reader and/or unreliable. A search of Google, JSTOR and NYT did not yield additional results. Z1720 (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree with #2, I suspect the commenter was intending to link either this, or possibly (but only an insubstantial reference)this from the same source (also as source #1). Re: #3, the policy which you are relying on WP:RS/P states that the metro.news ___domain (which the link is from) can be considered reliable, as it only includes print articles. It's metro.co.uk which has contributors. Appreciate that you may not be in the UK but it is a major newspaper - in fact, according to Metro_(British_newspaper) it is the highest circulation print newspaper in the UK. Should you wish to read further about the differences between the metro.co.uk site and the metro.news site, there is a succint description under 'Content' on Metro_(British_newspaper) about the separation of editorial teams and organisational structure. #5 is a national print magazine in the UK. Also, #6 has several paragraphs about the subject. Moving on from these examples, there are many other examples aside from the given ones of coverage, one that stands out recently is the most recent issue (#8) of a UK trade body magazine for the Association of Accounting Technicians - cover and multi page feature in the magazine. WikiUser249325 (WikiUser249325) 12:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct that RS/P differentiates between metro.news vs metro.co.uk. Sorry about that! Looking at the Metro News source, I see Reader is only mentioned in passing so cannot be used as a source for GNG. The two National News articles above are not focused on Trump and does not establish why Reader is notable. I cannot access the AAT magazine so I cannot determine its suitability for WP:GNG. With only one, possibly two, sources to establish notability I am going to continue advocating for delete. Z1720 (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop quoting Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources like it is a policy at Wikipedia because it's not. It's not even a guideline. It should not be used to determine the notability of anything for AfD. It can be used, as a reference, when writing an article if you want to avoid said issues here. WP:GNG is policy. If the subject is given significant coverage in verifiable independent sources (this do not have to be national or international media) then it passes that aspect of GNG. I will do a WP:BEFORE search and give my view on GNG. Also, bolding "Comment" repeatedly makes it hard for a closer to tally the !vote and see the arguments of each editor. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that WP:RS/P is not a policy. However, it is a supplement to WP:RS and a list of sources evaluated by the English Wikipedia community for their reliability. I quote RS/P because WP:GNG requires that sources be reliable. If our community has deemed a source to be unreliable then it cannot be used to establish notability. Z1720 (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Our" community hasn't deemed anything reliable in that essay. The writers of said essay have deemed them reliable or unreliable. That's not the community but their subjective interpretation of what the community has said. There are continuing arguments right now for deletion of an article in which Forbes magazine (contributor and staff written) is being called unreliable. I have seen one argue, and win mind you, that Encyclopedia Britannica is unreliable. The consensus is whatever those involved in a particular AfD conclude along with the closer. That changes from AfD to AfD. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Post BEFORE search: Interesting subject. I lean inclusionist but I gotta have something to fight for. Would like to keep but I couldn't find two sources, local or otherwise, that would even cover the subject in a significant manner. Most of them just have others describing a generic outline of the subject and how they impacted their life. It's hard to write or keep an article on that alone. If its out there then prove I missed it and I'll change my !vote. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carl_Reader&oldid=1118248811"