Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Pilkington


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to The Reformation in Economics. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Philip Pilkington

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The subject does not satisfy notability requirements. There is no substantive coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There are a total of three reliable sources that have covered the subject in some way: (1) A Financial Times column that reviews several books and spends one paragraph on Pilkington's book, (2) An Irish Times review of the book, and (3) an American Affairs (a magazine founded in 2017) review of the book. While these reviews are on the border of satisfying WP:AUTHOR, they don't seem sufficient. There's nothing in the coverage on which to build an encyclopedic article. As it stands, the Wikipedia article appears intended to promote the subject (all the sources in the article are self-authored at the moment). Thenightaway (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Economics.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  01:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Reformation in Economics, our usual solution for people who do not have independent notability (whether GNG, PROF, or AUTHOR-based, none of which he appears to pass) but who have a book that is notable enough to support its own article. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Reformation in Economics makes a lot of sense. I've been troubled by this article in the past and couldn't work out whether it should be deleted or not. Doesn't seem notable enough to me. Seaweed (talk) 14:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge - as I've said before in such situations one way or the other, in past examples of marginal notability of writers. Usually the books(s) are merged into the writer's article, which is what I recommend in this place. So long story short, there is usually not enough coverage of either writer and book(s), but there is enough for both when considered in totality. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect — I believe there’s simply nothing to gain from merging because there appears to be almost no credible new information in the article that isn’t in the book article. I’d also point out that the book article reads like a sales pitch for a textbook, not an article capable of informing anyone interested in info about the book. ☲Fireyair☲ (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2024 (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.