Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy Pearse


 * 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. Subject passes WP:AUTHOR, per discussion. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Guy Pearse

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep: his name pops up here and there in coverage of Australian politics, but I haven't found detailed coverage of him in an independent source; so I do think he fails WP:GNG. He does not hold a significant academic post either, though he has written a couple of books. His Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams and The Greenwash Effect in particular have been cited a few times (he has 585 citations on GS). In the absence of reliable reviews of these books, he think he does not meet the bar for WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now taken a look at the sources by Goldsztajn. The reviews of his two books do appear to be independent and should count towards WP:AUTHOR, which calls for 'multiple independent periodical articles or reviews'. I have no problem changing my original !vote. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Looking for reviews of his book High and Dry, I found one that looks reliable, Button in The Monthly, and one that might be, in The Socialist. I don't think the Higgs WebDiary review is reliably published. Greenwash also has what looks like a reliably published review, Atkinson in Insights. That's not quite enough yet for WP:AUTHOR for me, and I don't think his essay Quarry Vision in a single-essay-per-issue magazine counts as a book, but it's enough of a start that I'm still leaving my opinion open on this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment FWIW two of his books would pass WP:NBOOK; the review mentioned above by John Button is worth noting as it is by a former Australian federal government minister.


 * Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Lots of comments, not much consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  00:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject's books get reviewed, and discussed by major reliable organisations, and are held by major libraries. There are bios by major/reliable organisations with editorial overview, eg, and .  Aoziwe (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I must say that these two links do not change my judgement of the subject. They are both bios from websites he has contributed to and cannot, therefore, be considered independent. They are not the kind of coverage called for by WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not completely correct. The ABC is a state broadcaster, akin to the CBC or the BBC; its basis of independence is legally constituted. I would agree that in itself, the bio is not an indicator of notability, but the source can be considered reliable and the contents can form *part* of considerations as to whether the subject is notable.  The point is, the ABC source itself should not be rejected out of hand, just used appropriately. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I now realise that I may have misunderstood Aoziwe's point. Yes, of course, the content of the sources may point towards the subject meeting some aspect of an SNG. I felt that Aoziwe was arguing that these bios help the subject reach GNG (perhaps this is what they are arguing?). Modussiccandi (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct - not by themselves but they do contribute. (I did not claim WP:ANYBIO.)  Aoziwe (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep subsequent contribution and changed !vote, happy to move off the fence, cough, build consensus. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Additional reviews found by Goldsztajn are enough to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2021 (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.