Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Burke (economist)


 * 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. No consensus for deletion has been formed. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Michael Burke (economist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article does not meet WP:BASIC nor WP:ANYBIO. This person is not notable and information on search engines is not readily available. The information presented in the biography does not show how this person is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Nominated due to removal of PROD. st170e talk 13:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. st170e talk  13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. st170e talk  13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. st170e talk  13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. st170e talk  13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

How isn't it readily available? Yes it does, he's a prominent Irish economist. Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The only significant mention on Google is that he writes a blog for The Guardian sometimes, something that isn't notable in itself. You need to look at and understand Wikipedia's policy on notability, where it must be proven with significant, reliable, independent sources for future articles. st170e talk 14:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a number of articles that's he's mentioned in and as mentioned in the article he was a senior international economist for Citibank Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Does that mean that we have to include all senior economists from Citibank on Wikipedia? What exactly has he done that's so notable? These are questions that you need to keep in mind when deciding on an article to write. st170e talk 14:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a straw man. Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm just pointing out the flaws in your argument for his inclusion. A senior economist from Citibank isn't notable, it's just a title and notability is not inherited nor inherent. There are plenty in the world with this title but they aren't on Wikipedia. If he won an Olympic medal, sure, include him. If he won the Nobel Peace Prize or worked as a finance minister who published award winning-books, sure, that's notable. Your argument is that he's a senior economist and writes a blog for the Guardian. That's hardly notable in my eyes. The burden of proof to show notability lies with the author. st170e talk 15:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Except I never made that argument. I never said he was a senior international economist for Citibank therefore he is notable. That was just one of the many factors. Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's wait for other contributors to this debate. st170e talk 15:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting (fault with Twinkle upon original creation of AfD) st170e talk 15:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 15:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is the deletion rationale is patently incorrect: "information on search engines is not readily available" is not an accurate statement. I certainly had no trouble finding it, within minutes. This Ulster Herald article about him is a good one, stating: "Speaking to the Ulster Herald this week, Mr Burke has become one of the leading proponents of the counter-argument that a united Ireland would collapse under the burden of the ‘subvention’ the North receives from the British Treasury." And it goes on from there to cite him in some detail. The article ref for IrishCentral, "Expert says United Ireland would see economic boom," is a reliable source. And a Gnews search reveals enough prominent mentions, especially in (god help us) RT, that I think he just gets by my own rule-of-thumb that "multiple" sources means three or thereabouts. And course until 2014 his work appeared regularly on the Guardian website. Last but not least, being invited by the European Parliament to speak and present his case for an Irish Union would seem to me to meet criterion 1 of WP:ECONOMIST . I think it is clear that he is a prominent enough Irish economist for our purposes. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * UlsterHerald is a local newspaper and I don't think it adds much credence to the significant sources requirement. He wasn't actually invited by the European Parliament, he was invited to a seminar by an MEP and his presentation was in that seminar. Whilst being invited by the European Parliament would definitely show notability, I don't see how this is particularly notable. Blogging with the Guardian isn't notable on its own, although it is something. With all of this, I don't think he meets the requirements set out at WP:GNG for significant coverage. A few passing mentions in some articles are trivial, although I do want to clarify that by readily available, I meant that you need to dig a lot deeper to find information about him to use. With regards to WP:ECONOMIST, 'widely cited' I don't think he meets. Sure, in the future he could very well meet that, but I don't think the time is just right for this article. st170e talk 17:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * -written multiple articles for guardian
 * -former senior international economist at Citibank
 * -mentioned in numerous articles by numerous media outlets
 * -notable enough that an MEP invited him to a seminar in the European Parliament.


 * Seems pretty notable to me.

Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Ulster Herald, Guardian, and Irish Central are all WP:RS and have significant coverage. Calling the Ulster Herald piece local coverage is a bit like calling a Washington Post interview with Janet Yellen local coverage.  Just because the outlet is located in the same place that the article subject frequents does not automatically make it local coverage.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the Ulster Herald being a local newspaper which doesn't have much weight when deciding reliable sources. Its readership is mainly local. This isn't significant coverage. st170e talk 00:53, 23 December 2016 (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.