Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Rowbotham (2nd nomination)

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. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rowbotham

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a candidate for Speedy A7 as the article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Article does nothing to establish notability of Rowbotham. Only claim to notability is that he is the author of two books (neither of which are notable enough for their own article) which have been reviewed in a few places. LK (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's certainly a case for notability by WP:AUTHOR: it cites 2 articles/reviews about Goodbye America, here's a third in an academic journal[1], and a NY Observer article partly about the book mentions a review in the Times Literary Supplement[2] (TLS is pay access only). And here's another review of Grip of Death[3]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify which requirement in WP:Author you believe Rowbotham may possibly meet? He clearly does not meet A1,A2,A4,A5, so I'm guessing A3: "created ... a significant or well-known work ... the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I don't see how his books meet that. LK (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Is four reviews not "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not appear notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (1) This has been discussed and resolved before (see previous "debate"). In such circumstances the "burden" should be on the person wanting to overturn the previous consensus ruling to show clear evidence why it should be overturned now. (2) If anything current events make the keep even more relevant. (3) In addition to the citations noted above, there are others mentioned in the previous discussion. (4) He presented to the House of Lords. How many authors have done that? That alone creates notability given the prestigious nature of the forum and the rarity of authors being allowed to do so. The supporters of deletion appear to have a very narrow (academic) understanding of "notability" and presumably have never visited nor know about the UK House of Lords. (5) He satisfies A2 and A4. His work is original (with vague similarities to the Social Credit movement but updated for the modern era) and is regularly mentioned on websites as one of the intellectual founders of the modern monetary reform movement (see this movement and Web of Debt by Ellen Hodgson Brown that mentions Rowbotham multiple times as a key figure in the modern monetary reform movement). NOTE: A2 and A4 do not themselves need the movements they start to be "mainstream" or commonly accepted. They simply need to exist. So questioning the "credibility" of the sources provided above is not directly relevant to the issue. The mere existence of the movements and the reference to Rowbotham should be sufficient for A4. Illuminatit (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC) — Illuminatit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Procedural Comment Illuminatit has only edited this AfD discussion and appears to be a sock. LK (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The notability (or lack thereof) of speaking at that ___location is well discussed in the previous deletion discussion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment He also satisfies A1. He is often cited by his peers. "Peers" by definition would have to be non academic monetary reformers (such as those writing for Prosperity UK). It could not mean "academic economists" as Rowbotham is not (obviously) an academic. NOTE: A1 cannot mean "you need to be cited by academics" because (obviously) authors can be non-academic and still be cited by "peers" and thereby satisfy A1. Illuminatit (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the reviews of his books, the article meets A3 of WP:AUTHOR: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. NJ Wine (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's full cites for 2 more reviews of his books:
- Stretch marks (Review of Blowback by Charles Johnson and Goodbye America by Michael Rowbothan). Perkin, Harold (Prof.). The Times Literary Supplement (London, England), Friday, July 27, 2001; pg. 24; Issue 5130. (1890 words)
- Matters of life and debt (Review of The Wealth of the World and the Poverty of Nations by Daniel Cohen and The Grip of Death by Michael Rowbotham). Coates, Barry. The Times Literary Supplement (London, England), Friday, April 21, 2000; pg. 31; Issue 5064. (1495 words)

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.