Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul A. Broad


 * 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) gidonb (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Paul A. Broad

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per my source analysis on the talk page, I believe only this source passes WP:GNG. In my opinion, not enough quality sources to demonstrate notability. Feel free to spot check my source analysis. – Novem Linguae (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete GNG requires multiple sources, so if only one meets GNG, GNG is not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Johnpacklambert, did you just accept the claim made by the nominator or actually bother to check it? Did you do a WP:BEFORE search? I have to say again, this is a really unhelpful contribution from you. Why do you continue to persist with adding your one line contributions in AfDs such as this where you always !vote delete and don't engage with other contributors when they ask you questions? Deus et lex (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Paul Broad was a notable figure when it came to transport & roads and politics during the term of a number of premiers of New South Wales and the sources show there is clear independent coverage. While made in good faith (as the page is a mess, but note WP:NOTCLEANUP), and while the nominator actually bothered to check the sources (which is commendable!), the problem with the nomination that it makes an (erroneous) assumption that if someone is interviewed then the source is automatically not notable. This is not correct, as none of WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:RS or WP:IS say that interviews are unreliable sources that can't be used to assess notability. I accept that (in general) some interviews are clearly promotional but there are enough sources in this article that clearly are independent and reliable. When you look at sources 1 and 9 (for example), they're by a major regional newspaper (the Sydney Morning Herald, one of Australia's most well-known newspapers), and are done by the paper's transport editor, and are clearly independent coverage of him. If they can't be used as reliable sources then most stuff on Wikipedia couldn't be. Quite clearly there are several sources in the list on the talk page that are notable. Broad's article clearly meets WP:BIO and it should be kept. Deus et lex (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep While the page needs work to conform with some Wikipedia norms, I believe the subject is notableMiaminsurance (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Deus et lex. Vaticidalprophet 19:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, interviews of a subject/news reports where a subject has been asked for their views, depending on the source, may reflect (in part?) that they "[have] made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.", meeting WP:ANYBIO, eg. ABC News has |around 40 reports over years in which Broad provides an opinion as the head of major infrastructure enterprises. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 1 April 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.