Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Anderson (journalist)


 * 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. after clarification  DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Paul Anderson (journalist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:JOURNALIST. No sources. CelenaSkaggs (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article is about an academic. The subject does meet WP:BIO, and NPROF is more relevant than JOURNALIST. Also there are sources, did you even do a WP:BEFORE? &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  14:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't see a pass of WP:Prof here. Can you be more specific with your claim? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per WP:HEY this article from The Spectator added to article during thie AfD by someone (not me); per having been editor of a significant publication Tribune (magazine); and per his 1997 book Safety first : the making of new Labour, which was reviewed in  The Times,  The Guardian, The New Statesman, The Observer...  my proquest archives search on the book here: .E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 17:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is basically his job history. Completely inadequate sourcing. Agricola44 (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Article makes no case for WP:PROF notability, being on the editorial staff of a publication is not inherently notable, and two book reviews, one of which is of an edited volume, is not enough to convince me of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * He's not an academic; he's a journalist/author/editor who teaches university courses. I's not appropriate to gauge his notability under WP:NPROF (I would not have added him to that list.)  He should be gauged according to WP:AUTHOR/WP:JOURNALIST, he sails past #3., and seems to pass #1., and #4. as well.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:HEY I fear that this article may fall fall prey to a combination of our endemic presentism and the fact that there are an awful lot of Pauls Anderson in the world: google and other searches mask notability of this political writer who was more active a decade ago, Plus his notability is drowned out by a Plethora of Pauls.   I have added several reviews of his books, more exist.   He passes WP:AUTHOR, because Safety First, his analysis of New Labour, would pass WP:NBOOK - it's not only widely reviewed, but discussed and cited.   Also, asserting that it should be deleted cecause he was merely "on the editorial staff" (deputy editor at New Statesman,) is misleading.  Deputy editor of New Statesman is a major job, and his firing in an anti-leftists "purge" was covered by The Guardian.  Plus,  he was Editor of Tribune (magazine), a valid claim to notability. (see list of decades of bluelinked Tribune editors through to the present.)  With an author, one book that passes WP:NBOOKS puts the author over the top.  The article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I want to add that in my WP:HEYMANN I merely picked for the low-hanging fruit (book reviews). Article certainly needs improvement, which could be readily done by anyone willing to invest the time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More time to discuss recent changes and sourcing improvements to article
 * Keep per EM Gregory, even though the exact meaning of WP:HEY still eludes me. L3X1 (distænt write)  21:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as I'm willing to accept the reviews as sufficient here. SwisterTwister   talk  02:43, 5 October 2017 (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.