Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl Dixon (economic writer)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Daryl Dixon (economic writer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnotable person, article is still an orphan three years after creation. Article is an autobiography, created by and and sourced to the subject. Every word in the article was written by User:Dixon Advisory and it looks like an ad for his company. Barsoomian (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep he has a recent article in The Australian referred to here (paywalled), and his financial advice appears to be the topic of 3 articles in the Australian Financial Review over 3 years(AFR search). Whilst not a reliable source his about page on his website should allow the identification of RS for many elements of his CV. A Trove search for books lists 44 publications, a number of which are published by notable publishers (e.g. ). -- Paul foord (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note the article has now been edited to make it more encyclopedic, more work required. Found lots of publications at Trove. I note the late addition of the WP:COI to the nomination. --Paul foord (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did just add WP:COI explicitly here, but the COI template has been, appropriately, on the article since 2010. Barsoomian (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I think the article addresses the concerns raised. I think there are more than enough RS proving notability. Just found 3 columns in the Sydney Morning Herald in their supplement on the 1998 Mini-Budget by Daryl Dixon, Labor's strategy opens way for flat tax system, Tax reform on the cheap and Mortgage-holder the losers, (13 April 1989), Sydney Morning Herald, p. 2s -- Paul foord (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that every cited reference is written by Dixon. There is nothing independent about him. No reviews, for example. Barsoomian (talk)
 * I think he fits here Notability Creative_professionals 'The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications.' Paul foord (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He wrote three articles in a newspaper in 1989 (not '98). That's "significant"? Mark me unconvinced, but it's up to the closer. Barsoomian (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * see this link and this link Paul foord (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have recently made some additional edits to the Daryl Dixon (economic writer) page. I agree with Paul foord in that there is still a fair bit to update given the quantum of references and sources to Daryl Dixon.  For starters I found 65 articles written by Daryl Dixon in the AFR Smart Investor magazine http://www.afrsmartinvestor.com, how would you suggest referencing these?   Also he writes for the Canberra Times weekly however there are only 30 articles available on the net. Pete441 (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is purely autobiographical and promotional. andy (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So fix it.Strong Keep The state of the article is irrelevant. I think he passes based on what has been brought into the open. Plus he wrote a couple of articles for this magazine . His biography at this University website gives us good details of his notability in his field as well. THis is just the Icing on the cake. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: the precious few secondary sources don't imply notability, and the WP:BURDEN lies heavily on the supporters, especially as this is obviously self-promotional. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * CommentI believe your burden is met. Here is another ref for you. This guy is clearly notable in Australia. Here is a businessweek overview of him as well to assert his being a significant contributor to his field. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I understood that notability was a separate issue from self promotion. The arguments for deletion appear to address the promotion aspect. That can be edited out - which is what my edits sought to do - it would appear further work is required to address that. Paul foord (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming majority of the references are not independent because they were written in whole or part by the article's subject. The key claim for him, that "He is well known and respected in Australia as an authority on superannuation" is a totally unsupported assertion. I see nothing that shows particular notability - in what way is he any different from the majority of clever writers? IMHO this article fails both WP:RS and WP:BIO and I have heard no convincing arguments to the contrary. Remove the unreliable sources and the pointless and unreferenced detail in the biography session and there's nothing left apart from an unconvincing stub. andy (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You make it sound as if he is self-published rather than featuring in prominent Australian news media. The Australian, the Australian Financial Review and the Australian Broadcasting Commission are independent of him and free to choose whatever experts they choose. Daryl Dixon appears prominently in the Australian print media and as a commentator, and to a lesser extent on the broadcast media (see a quick ABC website search, here, at http://www.abc.net.au/nightlife/stories/s1648051.htm tthe ABC refers to Dixon as their superannuation expert. Paul foord (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You make a good point about the distinction between self publication, and having your articles published in many news outlets. I also ask the person who doubted the assertions of notability presented by the university I linked to. Why would they lie? I think they would know who is notable in the field and who is not. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep With Javascript enabled, open this source and click on "Read full background".  This is everything we want as significant reliable coverage by a secondary source.  I searched Google on [Daryl Dixon superannuation] and see that on the first page of hits a snippet shows that abc.net.au recognizes the topic as a "Superannuation expert".  The second page of hits has this source, in which the Victorian government serves as an independent source giving attention to the topic.  This trove page assigns the topic a persistent ID and lists 267 resources.  Topic satisfies WP:GNG and WP:N.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the Google Scholar search helps - his work has received a number of citations. Not huge - the h-index only works out to be 5 - but this isn't an academic field. StAnselm (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This person is very well known in Australia, appearing often in newspaper and also on Tv. eg http://www.abc.net.au/nightlife/stories/3617239.htm http://www.smh.com.au/business/asset-check-with-daryl-dixon-20121124-2a0l0.html. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, I think the sources scrape him over the notability bar, but not by much. A large proportion of the references provided are by Dixon himself, and while that's not against the rules as such, there shouldn't be any trouble locating heaps of coverage on someone who was clearly notable.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep: Notability established. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2013 (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.