Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bevan Lawrence (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Bevan Lawrence
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. While this was deleted in a discussion back in 2008, it was not recreated until 2015 -- so I don't consider it eligible for G4. That said, the basic notability claim here is no different than it was the first time, and the sourcing provided to support it isn't appreciably stronger. He's still just the founder of a lobby group, but does not inherit notability on that basis if he isn't the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG -- but the sourcing here isn't reliable source coverage. There's one user-generated video sharing site where anybody can add video clips of anything they want to create self-published "sourcing" for; one transcript of an interview in which he's a soundbite-giver and not the subject; one piece of primary source content that he wrote for the website of an organization he's directly affiliated with (but a person gets an article by being the subject of the sources, not the author of them); and one book that mentions him but isn't substantively enough about him to carry notability by itself as the article's only acceptable source. As I don't have deep database access to older Australian media coverage, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can locate the depth of sourcing necessary to actually get him over WP:GNG -- but the base notability claim is still not strong enough to exempt him from having to be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. JarrahTree 07:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable lawyer and activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Emphatic Keep. The subject is demonstrably a notable public advocate in Western Australia, though he has largely withdrawn from activism since helping to defeat the Hawke federal government's Australia Card legislation in 1987 (over which a double dissolution election was held); and bringing about the royal commission which discredited the WA Inc state government and resulted in the jailing of two former state premiers and a deputy premier. Because of the scarcity of online references in that period, his notability must mainly be reinforced by print media, which I undertake to explore. Australia's National Library has not digitised most newspapers later than the mid-1950s but does carry later editions of The Canberra Times which in 1989 ran this article on the inaugural public meeting of People for Fair and Open Government. The local authority of Nedlands has published this record of his separate sporting and civic contributions. I will search out further relevant citations from The West Australian, The Sunday Times (Western Australia) and other publications of the day. These will mostly be checkable globally by those with expensive paid subscriptions to the papers, though I can undertake to maintain copies for verification. This is a good example of worthy encyclopedic content which largely predates the internet and can too easily be swept away. Bjenks (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep 'non notable lawyer' is through and through outright rubbish in the context of understanding the events of WA Inc JarrahTree 05:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It is clear that WP:GNG is satisfied, including coverage in non-local newspapers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - satisfies WP:GNG - notable public advocate. Dan arndt (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable activist + for role in WA Inc so satisfies WP:GNG Hughesdarren (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable, significant activist. I have two books in my library that discuss Lawrence's work and aren't cited here, and it's hardly like they're the only ones. Deletion is not cleanup. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.