Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Sweeney


 * 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. As argued, fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. That someone exists and has published books and articles is by consensus not reason enough by itself to have a standalone article on Wikiipedia. No prejudice against someone writing up this article with reliable sources to indicate the person's notability.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Sweeney

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR (as a journalist and author). yes I can verify that he worked at the ABC and that he works at Macquarie Bank but there is a lack of third party coverage about this individual. article has existed unreferenced for over 2 years...is this due to a lack of coverage? LibStar (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Perhaps the lack of coverage since he was an active journalist and author is that he may be dead? It was 20 years ago he was active in the public sphere.  Does lack of coverage in the later part of one's life mean that he is not notable?  This bloke was active prior to the Google Era.  I think we need to be careful about deleting things just because you can't find stuff on Google. Gillyweed (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * comment I am always wary of keep arguments on unreferenced articles that contain no evidence of significant coverage. Christopher Sweeney is not dead, he works at Macquarie Bank. google news goes back to 1840. unless you can come up with reliable third party sources your !vote carries very little weight. LibStar (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm delighted you have found that he is still alive.  Okay, he has done nothing particularly notable since writing his books and being a journo but does that then make you him longer notable, because he has faded into obscurity.  I find your view that Google News is essential to determining notability a concern.  The National Library of Australia has hardly commenced digitizing much of its holdings and yet you claim that because he's not in Google News he isn't notable.  This is worrying.  My father who was highly active in the media during the 1960s - 80s (he died in the late 1980s) scores 1 hit on Google News.  During this time there wasn't a month which went by where he wasn't in of the major Australian dailies.  If you followed the Google test he wouldn't be notable, despite him receiving an Order of Australia for services to his country.  I have no objections using the Google Test from 2000 or so onwards, but prior to that - it's a dodgy way of checking notability. Gillyweed (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PS How can you be sure that the Christopher Sweeney you have found at Macquarie Bank is the same as the one in the WP article? Gillyweed (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)*

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment whilst web sources are preferable, you can provide any normal citation. you still have not provided any evidence of significant third party coverage of this person, thus he fails WP:N. the article claims he works at Macquarie Bank, so I checked that. now there is confusion if this is even the same person, thus making it more difficult to establish notability. in the clear absence of reliable sources or citations (paper or online), delete seems the best option. LibStar (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are web sources really preferable? They will be dead by the time the average reader tries to use them anyway Bossk-Office (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Worldcat shows his historical books (about Australia) are held by many Australian libraries. Given that his major work was published pre-Internet, and that most of the relevant coverage is likely to be print coverage that's not online yet, the perceived problem is not that the subject isn't notable, but that sourcing is difficult -- that's not a reason for deletion. Google Scholar results are hard to sort through, because there's at least one prolific medical researcher with the same name, butg one of his books shows multiple citations, and there appear to be other citations to journal articles he's written that aren't mentioned in the article.  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * please provide these citations instead of saying they exist. LibStar (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I found a few the other night where he had been cited by other scholars. However, I couldn't for the life of me think of how to incorporate them into the article.  When someone else says "Sweeny in his book blah said...", I fail to see how this should be incorporated into the article.  Any suggestions? Gillyweed (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete, I can see that his books seem to be held in a few libraries, but they're not held that widely. Given that this is a BLP, and given that we can't find any actual sources at present to verify this person's notability, I lean towards deletion.  If these hypothetical print sources do surface, restoring the article to incorporate them is an easy enough process.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:59, 11 August 2009 (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.