Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil P. Munro


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Neil P. Munro

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

While it's not difficult to find works with Munro's byline, it is difficult to find works about Munro—which is what matters for WP:CREATIVE. I haven't been able to find sufficient sources to show that he meets the standard. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is irretrievably POV. NPOV and BLP demand that we delete it.  Even if he's actually notable, a fresh start is needed.  Powers T 15:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Powers. Drmies (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

From Neil Munro; OK, Wikipedia must have criteria for exclusion & inclusion, but I do think I meet this test; "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Here is the borderline example, which I must and do beat; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ed_Lowe_(journalist) My articles have spawned discussion at the left-of-center blogs, such as the Deltoid blog (those peope don't like my stories about the lousy Lancet studies on Iraq war-deaths. FWIW, my sidebar story on the Lancet=study ethics problems got the main author sanctioned by Johns Hopkins U.), as well as on the right-of-center Powerline, Weekly Standard and National Review blogs. I was the repotter who jump-started the articles about Obamas's unverified crdit-card donations, and the Pentagon's growing interest in cyber-war [back in 98, ii think, and those cyber-war articles prompted a 'Dear Colleague Letter'  in the Senate). I've also been widely cited in D.C. debates on stem-cells. You can also find online discussions about my fake-photo articles, and my immigration articles. My work for NJ is mostly behind the subscription wall, but it is widely read in DC, many of whose political adovcates broadcast it via their e-mail lists. If nothing else, you can check me out on Google, and I rank above the Socttish novelist of the same name. That alone shows that I've met the "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" test. For "neil munro"  and "national journal," I've got 17,600 mentions on Yahoo, 3,580 on google and 1,590 on MSN. I meet the 'creative' criteria for being "widely cited by their peers." I can also claim to meet "played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject ....of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." That's especially true of the Obama, cyber-war, fake-photo and stem-cell stories. The POV argument is reasonable charge. I suppose I should write the description it in a flatter style. I should also include that fact that I authored a poorly written, low-selling but useful book, titled "Electronic Combat." St. Martins published it, and kept about 90 percent of the revenue. I meet your reasonable & needed tests for notability. I hope you also meet your tests for fairness. I hope my next text meets your requirement for POV. Neil —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilPMunro (talk • contribs) 05:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you're reading policy pages, you might want to read up on Autobiography as well. Powers T 13:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You might also want to read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, Other stuff exists, and Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. While they're essays (i.e., not official WP policies), they contain plenty of useful information.
 * A word of advice: if you really want the article on you stick around, the strongest argument you can make is to add links to third-party articles written about you to the article's talk page. That's articles about you personally, not articles responding to articles you've written or articles citing articles you've written. This is a common issue with journalists; there's often plenty of reliable sources about their work, but little to nothing about them personally. And in order to write a biographical article, that's what's needed. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep and stub. The current article doesn't even have anything that can be stubbed, but there's a case to be made for notability because of press coverage of Munro & Cannon's expose of the Lancet and there may be a couple of other pieces out there.  I'll flag the article for rescue. THF (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per LtPowers. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 09:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  StarM  03:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as notability is not established, and the obvious COI issue. Adam Zel (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2009 (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.