Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Goodall


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris Goodall

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Books have only received minor notice (Clarion Award includes awards to condom adverts, direct mail hawkers, the latest in his category was to a collection of emergency services animal rescue stories) and he was not elected and did not received significant coverage so cannot claim political notabilty either. Non notable biography. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 12:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There is plenty of coverage for this author/activist and his book in the G-News archives: See Christian Today, The Guardian etc. The article needs work, not deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Christian Today does not strike me as a amazingly unbiased and reliable source, the Guardian bit isn't even about him...though if we need it, it can help build a case for the notability of Marks and Spencers or Carbon Offsetting. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN Codf1977 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator - Obviously I think it should be gone, per the reasons I gave above. His novels fall short of that criteria and his politician creds don't check out and I do not believe there is any significant coverage of him as a person to justify this article. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I listed more sources (check the article, please):


 * Honk if you want to stop global warming Salon.com
 * How Virtuous is Ed Begley Jr.? The New York Times
 * When going green just doesn't add up Yorkshire Post
 * Ekspert: Det er miljøskadeligt at gå (DR Forside)


 * Btw, WP:POLITICIAN is not the only relevant guideline here. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost all of those are more about the book than him. One is using his book to slap someone else around. It is just the news grabbing onto the outlandish claims in his book or a bit of a copy selling laugh. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 12:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The "outlandish claims" were noted by multiple reliable media. I don't judge theories, they're foolish for some and wise for others. I would agree with merging this bio to How to Live a Low-Carbon Life. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * redirect -- failed candidate = NN; author of a book on which we have an article does not necessarily make him notable; hence redirect ot book. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - low-level political candidate, non-notable author. This individual does not pass WP:GNG or any of the more specific guidelines.    Snotty Wong   prattle 20:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable author. Just noticed that he did a book review for Nature Reports no less. Johnfos (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  12:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep — Sufficient notability as an author. I encourage a lower bar for politicians, since they are "public figures" by nature, and that's additional worth to the topic. It's just a stub, needs improvement, obviously, but deletion is not the answer here. Carrite (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I ask which bit of the author guidelines you believe he has passed? And a lower bar for politicians (which I would lean towards supporting, were it not for a CoI) is a good debate t have, but one for the policy pages and not something to be driven by AfDs. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete; non-notable politician, and that coverage there is of his life and texts fails the "significance" test. Ironholds (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per the WP:Author notability criterion 3, Goodall has created a collective body of work that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The periodicals include Journal of Environmental Health Research, The Guardian , The Times , New Scientist  , as well as many notable articles written by Goodall    . Johnfos (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep  the reviews are sufficient to establish notability as an author.    DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - notably of this author clearly established per Johnfos' list.--E8 (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2010 (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.