Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kieran Maguire


 * 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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Kieran Maguire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While there are claims of significance, including a non-notable book (with only 1 review), university awards, self-initiated/promo podcast, and nondescript accountancy co, the Subject has questionable notability. For example, places, where he appeared, are mainly interviews and insignificant coverage which do not necessarily warrant his individual notability. Other sources are trivial mentions. Could be worth merging with any of his notable affiliations. Infogapp1 (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Infogapp1 (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. User:Hildreth gazzard (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. User:Hildreth gazzard (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Several sources, including multiple reviews of the book The Price orf Football have been added to the article since it was nominated for deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

User: Hildreth gazzard (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - not convinced by sources/claim to notability. GiantSnowman 11:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per citing reliable sources. Sources 'are fine for establishing notability and so the subject passes WP:BASIC.  Article already demonstrates significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and passes WP:GNG
 * Keep on two grounds:
 * First, Maguire fulfills WP:NAUTHOR point 3: The four book reviews now cited in the article, meet this quite clearly.
 * Second Maguire fulfills WP:NPROF point 7: The guideline goes on to say:  The "Studies and other media appearances" section currently cites some 23 different occasions when mainstream or specialist publications (including national publications and several notable enough to have an article here) have cited and quoted Maguire  as an expert in his academic field, the financial basis of football (soccer), in which he teaches a specialized MBA course. I have found additional examples which could be added to the article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to wonder at the level of WP:BEFORE done by the nominator. The nom statement says that the book has only a single review. I had no great trouble finding four(plus one for the podcast), which makes a significant difference in whether NAUTHOR applies. The nom also does not seem to have considered NPROF 7. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NAUTHOR usually requires multiple reviewed books, and I only see one here. That seems to make a case for redirecting to an article about the book.  It is possible that the book together with the being quoted for newspaper articles is enough to give notability for the subject here, however. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NAUTHOR says which seems to include a single book. But I think the NPROF 7 guideline should cover tjhis article, althoguh an article about the book could be created.  DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There seem to be two industries where the Subject is being claimed to be notable now. (1) Notability (academics) and (2) his passing mentions and 'expertise' in his interviews about football, which I have to point out: are self-initiated and not necessarily as a result of someone covering his expertise/works.
 * Now, when I said I only saw 1 review about the book, I am only seeing 1 Google Books review as of writing. (https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Price_of_Football.html?id=lDiaswEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y). Screenshot here: https://ibb.co/QQjfdzB As, we need at least multiple successful books before we can establish Notability (books).
 * As for the other podcast review, I'm unable to see any context at all in these reviews, hence it's difficult to verify the nature of those supposed reviews (https://podtail.com/en/podcast/price-of-football/). Should the community decide to keep, I think it's still worth merging it with any of his notable works/affiliations. — Infogapp1 (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , where exactly in WP:NBOOK does it say that multiple books are required to establish notability under this SNG? And what makes you think that Google Books is the only, or even the primary, place for a book review? Do you think that the reviews in Columbia University Press, Blues Trust, Times Higher Education and Soccer & Society somehow don't count? Is there some problem with those?
 * As to the podcast reviews, published podcast reviews by a RS are apparently a bit rare. One is probably not enough to make the podcast separately notable. But I don't understand what context you are looking for. This seems to be a regular column, reviewing podcasts and radio shows, published by a major newspaper and going into some detail about each reviewed item. Just the sort of thing that notability is made of, IMO.
 * As for the NPROF 7 situation, while the podcast is "self-initiated" (as indeed the book is, presumably) it would appear that these various newspapers and publication went to Maguire and asked him his opinions for publication, because they regard him as an expert, and say so in introducing his comments. That is preciously the sort of thing that NPROF 7 means by as I see it. In a few cases it seems that Maguire  has done formal studies of particular situations, which are then being quoted by news media. In short the media are treating him as an expert in his field. That is what NPROF 7 covers. Do you disagree? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 1) 1 Notability (books)"The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." As it was written in January, I'm not seeing many independent reviews by critics about the book, apart from interviews that then mention the book which are still, arguably, self-initiated interviews. For example, if you're referring to this 'Columbia University Press', we need to look into the goal of publishing the said 'review'. By the looks of it, was created to sell the book itself, which still does not constitute independent review (and no monetary gains from the said publication). As for the Guardian article, it may be considered to establish the notability of the podcast and and Kevin Day, but not so much of the individual notability of the subject there was only 1 passing mention of Maguire. The subject may arguably be significant by association (to Kevin Day and the podcast they're in together), but not enough for his own individual notability. — Infogapp1 (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Infogapp1, you say . The article currently quotes and cites 4 such reviews. You suggest that one, the CUP piece, . Perhaps, but the other three have no connection with any retailer, they are ordinary independent reviews. None of them seem to be . They also establish the notability of the book, and thus of the author. You say that the Guardian article does not help establish the notability of Maguire because it only mentions his name once. But the entire article is about the podcast, of which Maguire is co-creator (indeed arguably the senior creator). The who9le point of NAUTHOR is that a review of a book, or other creative work, is a review of the creator, and helps establish the notability of the creator. You also don't seem to address NPROF 7 at all. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep just doing a quick search he has been used as an analyst by external media bodies to give his view on footballing finance issues, with the Sunderland Echo the latest. That he is seen as the go to guy for this analysis that he meets wp:author The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums? User:Davidstewartharvey

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  qedk ( t  愛  c ) 05:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep As now is, notability is pretty clear. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2020 (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.