Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Ip


 * 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. Article's subject is found to be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg Ip

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY and unhelpful. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment in fact, Greg Ip is quite a unique name and it is extremely easy to google him and turn up sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources where already reasonable. Finding more 'reliable' source was easy, I've added some. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Overwhelming Colossal Keep: The guy won a freaking Pulitzer Prize. Nuf 'ced.  Nha Trang  Allons! 20:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No, he did not win a Pulitzer Prize. It was awarded to the Wall Street Journal staff, not Grep Ip personally.    There is an overwhelming colossal difference.  His was merely one of a set of ten articles by the WSJ staff published the day after the 9/11 attack that collectively earned a prize for the paper, not for Mr. Ip.  Eight of the articles were written by a total of 18 different reporters.  The other two were staff roundups not attributed to any individual authors.  Msnicki (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Meets WP:NAUTHOR criterion 3. Ip is the author of The Little Book of Economics: How the Economy Works in the Real World, which has been the subject of multiple independent periodical reviews, http://moneyweek.com/book-review-the-little-book-of-economics-greg-ip-63015 (blacklisted link), including one from the Central Bank of Barbados. Altamel (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, please. It takes more than a couple book reviews to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR.  The criteria is that it's a well-known or significant work.  It's not either of those.  It's just a book that got a few reviews, one of which concluded, "if you’ve read a lot of economics in the past, this book won’t be very revelatory for you. It speaks very well to the person who is new to economics, but not so much to someone who studied it in college, for example, and has kept up on the ideas."  Another described it as "an excellent read for non-economists".  That sure doesn't sound to me like these reviewers think this is a significant work, they think it's a book for people who don't know anything about the subject.  Msnicki (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It could be a significant work for people new to the subject. Getting reviews is a sign of notability. Jonpatterns (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It could also be that he's a reporter at the WSJ and he has a big Rolodex of people he could reach out to for a review. Msnicki (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply: Yeah, well, I hope you don't mind if we don't pay much attention to your unspoken speculation as to this guy's motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NukeThePukes (talk • contribs) 21:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We seem to be off-track. I respect your right to your opinion.  All I'm saying is that the reviews don't appear to support a claim that the work is significant or well-known as is required by WP:NAUTHOR.  You might have a case that the book itself is notable based on the reviews but notability is generally WP:NOTINHERITED.  Even if we agreed the book was notable, that wouldn't automatically make the author notable unless the book also met the additional criteria in WP:NAUTHOR of being significant or well-known.  Does that help explain my position?  Msnicki (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep In fact, Googling instantly turned up a profile of him and his career in the Wall Street Journal, where he now works. He is now a WSJ columnist. the Journal describes his book as "go-to economic guide for college undergraduates, self-directed investors and budding financial journalists". The book was reviewed in multiple reliable news sources.  He held a major editorial position at The Economist.  He has won a blue-linked journalism award. Why is this at AFD?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2015 (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.