Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurie Patton (Australian executive)


 * 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. Clear consensus to delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Laurie Patton (Australian executive)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The only claim to notability is being the vice-president of Telecommunications Society of Australia and I'm unable to find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources beyond passing mention or announcements.

P.S. most of the current sources are written by the subject but are not about the subject. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 05:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 05:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 05:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The subject seems to be a solid performer at the senior executive level, but I cannot find anything that makes the subject stand out as being notable.  Aoziwe (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and has been written as WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Subject's response: This entry was created about 15 years ago by a Wikipedia editor who was the social media guy at the company I then ran. He has since died. I have subsequently sought to keep the entry up to date and have declared my COI. I have had recent assistance from a number of Wikipedia editors, including SkyRing. The entry was considered for deletion about ten years ago but on review was accepted to be retained. Since the outbreak of the Coronavirus broadband access has become a subject of considerable media interest. I have received unsolicited requests and have appeared in television interviews and I have contributed articles at the request of a number of online and print media outlets. I have more than 21K connections on LinkedIn on which I post articles (my own and others) that are widely viewed and commented upon. Edit0695 (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * What this discussion is trying to do is to see if this WP:BLP meets WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. You've been on WP for awhile, so hopefully you have read what's at those links by now. So, what several refs are there that are at the same time reliably published (per WP:RS/WP:V), significant coverage about Laurie Patton and independent of Laurie Patton? The article currently has a WP:OVERKILL amount of refs, I checked the first 14.
 * 8 (wow) are written by you, they are no help for this discussion, and should probably be at least partly weeded.
 * Telsoc while reliable for that fact, is no help for this discussion.
 * Internet Australia, ditto.
 * itnews may be one of the several needed, I'm not familiar with it and don't know if it's reliable and/or independant.
 * The New Daily looks good but fails "significant coverage".
 * itwire, same as itnews.
 * The Saturday Paper looks alright but is WP:PAYWALLED and the bits I see doesn't mention Patton, so I can't tell if it helps the case for WP:GNG.


 * So per the above, I'm currently undecided. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The fact that this article was created by someone acting as PR rep for the subject should lead to an automatic and immediate deletion. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. That it has been abused in this way for 15 years is a grosse failure of its intentions and mission and needs to be stopped as soon as possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * COI accusations here absolutely should not be ground for deletion, as 96 contributors worked on the article. That an employee of Patton's firm once worked on the article does not erode whether Patton measures up our inclusion standards.  I see plenty of references to support notability.  That is what is most important.  Geo Swan (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It is important to remember that articles with titles that require disambiguation won't get less effective google searches at the top of the AFD. ""Laurie Patton" Australian OR australia" is a more effective google search term.  Geo Swan (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep As above, plenty of references to support notability.  I did my web search, and found that within the last 30 days over half a dozen RS have called upon Patton's opinion as if he was one of Australia's most well-known commentators.  Seven RS quoted his opinion on the effect of Covid19 on Australia, its job market, and increased demand for internet due to social distancing.  Two RS quote his opinion on how the Australian Government alter its policy on its NBN.
 * asserts they "cannot find anything that makes the subject stand out as being notable." This is the wrong standard.  I am not an RS.  I accept that I am not an RS.  So, I accept I should not rely on my personal opinion as to whether topics are notable.  WP:NPOV and our other core policies call upon us to rely on the judgement of newspaper editors and journalists, and other authors of reliable sources, when measuring notability.  When RS have written about a topic, over a period of time, and in detail, the topic is notable.  In my fifteen years here I have made tens of thousands of edits where I disagreed with the opinions of every RS.  When our personal opinions is at odds with those of RS I think we have just two policy compliant choices.  (1) do our best to neutrally summarize, paraphrase or quote the RS we disagree with; or (2) walk away, and let other contributors work on those topics.  What we should not do is try to delete articles when our opinion of their notability is at odds with the RS that have covered them in detail.
 * wrote the article has been written as WP:PROMO. Okay, PROMO has five numbered points: (1) Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment; (2) Opinion pieces; (3) Scandal mongering; (4) Self-promotion; (5) Advertising, marketing or public relations.  Abishe, first, which of these five numbered points did you mean to claim we should be concerned about?  I suggest the first three clearly don't apply.  As to the 4th and 5th points, I don't see the article as exagerrating Patton's accomplishments.  A proper perusal of a web search rather suggests to me that even if people associated with him once edited the article, they either did so in a fair and balanced manner, or other contributors rewrote passages that lapsed, so it is now neutral.  If someone inserts a paragraph or paragraphs that are copyright violations into an article, we don't delete the entire article, even though we hate copyright violations.  Rather we trim or rewrite the bad passages.  Can you identify specific passages that lapse from PROMO in the current version of the article?  So, if other people agree those passages are problematic, why can't we keep the article, and then trim or rewrite those passages?  Geo Swan (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Geo Swan Please note I was NOT refering to my personal opinion as to whether topics are notable. I was referring to that I could not find sufficiently depth contributing sources about the subject as distinct from sources mentioning quotes by the subject.  For us to gather a series of quotes by the subject, even from reliable independent sources, rather than about the subject, and then assert notability, is WP:OR / WP:PRIMARY by us.  If an IRS had gathered the quotes and inferred status/expertice/notability, then we could use that as a secondary IRS. If you can provide such I will try to be the first to change to a keep.  Regards.  Aoziwe (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I left a comment, above on the complications of web searches, when article titles contain disambiguation. It really is a serious problem.  I am working on an essay on this topic, at User:Geo Swan/opinions/When complying with BEFORE is not straighforward.  If you relied on a web search for "Laurie Patton (Australian executive)" -wikipedia, rather than one like I suggested, above, could you please repeat your web search using the search terms I suggests, as in ?  Second, you imply that BLPs have to include some of the individual's mundane biographical details, like date or place of birth, schools attended, mariage(s), children.   replied to this kind of claim best - paraphrasing from memory.  We cover notable people for their accomplishments, not their mundande details.  Sometimes genuinely notable people, with great accomplishments, or who have earned reputations that get their opinions routinely quoted by RS, manage to keep their personal life to themselves to a sufficent extent that those mundane biographical details aren't published, or widely published.  I completely agree, that missing routine biographical details should never be a bar to recognizing genuine notability for an individual.  Over the years I have worked on two user essays on this point, that focus on False Geber, a 13th or 14th century writer, about whom absolutely known of the mundane biographical details are known, not his nationality, occupation, religion, the location where he lived.  What we do know is that his writings had an impact on the development of Chemisty that has caused him to be remembered for 600 years or more.  Here are those two essays: User:Geo Swan/opinions/"False Geber" and what a biography should contain and User:Geo Swan/The earliest sockpuppet to be unmasked...  After I left my comments, above, I did some work on the article's 39 existing references.  Yes, I found more of them were written by Patton himself, than I had originally realized.  Nevertheless, even if we were to agree to trim out every reference that he wrote, wouldn't that still leave the article with more valid RS than most BLP?  Patton has had a long, very long career.  In his long career how many times has another RS interviewed him?  I dunno. But he has himself been the subject of interviews.  Here is an example: http://thewire.org.au/story/mobile-tracking-device-activated/  Yes, this particular interview does not touch on his mundane biographical details.  Yet RS don't interview NN people.  This RS interviewed him because he had already established his notability as a highly respected commentator.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please note I did not start commenting at AfD yesterday. Rest assured I NEVER rely on the default google search and ALWAYS dump the (disambiguation), AND do my own.  Aoziwe (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Second, you imply that BLPs have to include ... No I did not imply (only) that. I was primarily interested in finding material written by any IRS about the subject's career.  Aoziwe (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * manage to keep their personal life to themselves to a sufficent extent that... I agree. Aoziwe (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments, on talk pages, and other fora, are supposed to be placed after the previous guys comments, not interspersed in the middel of the previous comments. I refactored my comment, and a reply that was interspersed, to conform to long-standing convention.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "over half a dozen RS have called upon Patton's opinion " is not exactly what WP:GNG/WP:BASIC are asking for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * -- note that wasn't "half a dozen RS", that was "half a dozen RS in the last month" -- something completely different than what you imply I wrote. In my comment, above, I linked to two user essays I wrote: User:Geo Swan/opinions/"False Geber" and what a biography should contain and User:Geo Swan/The earliest sockpuppet to be unmasked....  I think they may address your question about GNG as well.  Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer a few good refs with significant coverage, but that's me, closer may think differently. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete While the article has lots of sources, they do not convincingly demonstrate notability: the sources include stuff written by the subject, tweets, Crikey blogs and nothing at all that appears to actually be focused on Mr Patton (no profiles of him, etc). As such, WP:BIO isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Subject's further comment: As previously pointed out, this entry was created by a Wikipedia editor now deceased some 15 years ago. I have merely tried to keep it up to date. Note this observation: "04:34, 9 April 2020‎ Skyring talk contribs‎  7,122 bytes +1,921‎...The subject has been complying with policy under supervision. I think he's done some good work". GSS is unhappy about over-CITING but this was simply in response to earlier requests from other editors to provide more evidence of my roles and references to articles about me (or quoting me). Edit0695 (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I asked you multiple times, but you have not yet responded to my question so, can you please shed some light on hiring freelancers to remove maintenance tags from your page after you made some failed attempt. This is a violation of . GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 06:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I had no idea about WP:MEAT. I am not as knowledgable as you about the Wikpedia processes so at the suggestion of a friend I had someone more experienced make some changes. They were initially accepted until a good while later when someone else decided to make changes that totally destroyed the entry. Including adding statements that were incorrect. Since then, and with the asistance of others like SkyRing, I have simply attempted to ensure that the entry is up to date and accurate. Edit0695 (talk) 04:53, 14 April 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.