Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Anthony


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 13:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Paul Anthony

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The sources here are not about the subject, they cover a couple of events (leaving company X) but don't constitute substantive coverage of him. The roles are not high profile and some of the content looks like it was written by his PR. Guy (help!) 08:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete  There are certainly sources to document the subject's positions for about two decades, but then they appear to drop off the radar. I could find nothing which resembled any IRS bio material, and the position material did not really talk much about achievements, good or bad, apart from a lot relating to what is essentially a single event, ie AGL.  There is sustained coverage over time but it is very light on and mostly just routine commercial reporting.  If any one can find any reasonable depth bio material I might be convinced to change my !vote.  Aoziwe (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep. As per my comment below re "Doughty Hanson" I still have concerns, about the reliability of some of the reliable sources.  Many of them seem to have regurgitated content treating "Doughty Hanson" comparably to other positions held by the subject, when if the "other" source is correct, this is clearly not the case.  If the reliable soruces have regurgitated unreliable content, what else might be unreliable.  I am now curious to see what else might be found out about the subject, in time, covering the periods before and after 2000–2007.  Aoziwe (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. True, he has drop off the radar but notability is not temporary. In addition to the routine reporting there are also sources covering his activities in deep, eg. this. Beagel (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not saying that notability is temporary. I was saying why has reporting stopped, and hence further coroboration of sources becomes difficult.  Aoziwe (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete also article is becoming outdated. Ref 3 is behind a paywall and 4,6 and 7 are all broken. Teraplane (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment -, the fact that the articles are becoming broken is not a reason for deletion. Notability is not temporary. Bookscale (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment -, fair enough, but then the references should be updated or replaced for adequate citation. They are breaking because they are so old the orignal content has been removed from news sites. Another indication of lack of notability. 01:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraplane (talk • contribs) 01:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - removal from news sites is also not an indicator of notability (or lack thereof). Please see the notability guideline more generally. Bookscale (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Broken references and being outdated are not valid reasons for deletion. However, the article has been expanded and references are fixed with a number of additional sources. Beagel (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete- I do not see anything here that would make the subject notable. Dunarc (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. There article has been updated and references establishing notability have been added since your comment. Beagel (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Beagel. Looking at the revised and much improved article there is now a much stronger case for keeping that there was, as I do think on the basis of what has been added makes a good case for the subject's general notability. So I am not now convinced that deletion is the way forward, and therefore would lean towards Keep, although it is a relatively close call. Dunarc (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject has the problem that there isn't much online from that period when he was lots in the news, but I distinctly remember this episode and judge it to comfortably clear our notability threshold. I have found one item online that refers to that period. What happened was as follows: first, he negotiated a massive severance package (mentioned in the source I added). Then, when Contact Energy was privatised, he stayed on and everybody was mightily surprised (that's also covered in that reference). But what happened next is what got him into the news big times: he had somehow negotiated an even higher severance package and got paid out NZ$6.5m, which at the time was unprecedented in New Zealand. I see that the National Library has nine newspaper items about this period (Dec 2000 and Jan 2001) in its collection. The sources exist, but just aren't online (any longer).  Schwede 66  01:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 *  Schwede 66  03:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is better. It is no longer single event.  I would be prepared to go to weak delete.   Why can we only find mainly routine commercial material for seven years for someone who is 65 years old if they have a good case for notability.  If we could find some level of bio study I would be prepared to go to at least a "weak keep". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoziwe (talk • contribs) 09:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article about the end of his tenure at Contact is hardly "routine" - most of the article is about him. Don't forget that Schwede has also found newspaper sources that are no longer (or were never) available on the internet. Bookscale (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are two significant "events", ie "Contact Energy" and "AGL". I think the better search on NZ Nat Lib is probably this one, but no matter.  You are probably correct, there is probably just enough to get over the GNG line.  I think what is making me nervous is more about the accuracy and completeness of the article.  While not about CLEANUP here, the integrity of the article worries me.  I cannot find any sources at all for content before 2000 that would definitely not be regarded as churnalism.  There is no secondary or primary material that I can find anywhere at all.  It all seems to be regurgitated as fourth and fifth hand.  Only minor, but it adds to my nervousness about the integrity of the article, is that some balance needs to be added re "Doughty Hanson" - see this for example.  And then after 2007 the subject completely disappears off the radar - much less not online coverage excuses then - but possbily given then issues at AGL the subject did not get any more newsworthy positions.  Aoziwe (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Schwede66, Thanks for your work on this. See my comments above under my original.Dunarc (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - I actually hadn't done anything except comment on this AfD until now and I was staying out of the discussion as I thought it probably just didn't scrape through and wanted to see some more discussion, but I can see now the sources Schwede has added (or found, where he can't add online sources) indicate that Anthony's tenure at Contact Energy was significant in New Zealand corporate history and there is notable at least on a national basis (which should be enough to keep the page) and there are RS to support that notability. Add the Australian AGL material to that and in my view it gets this one over the line. Thanks for your work Schwede for assisting other users in helping to consider this AfD. Bookscale (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are number of sources satisfying WP:GNG. Several sources are analyzing his activities as CEO of different companies, so its not just passing mentioning. These sources are from different countries, most importantly from Australia and New Zeland, but also from Denmark. Beagel (talk) 16:20, 28 January 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.