Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kelly (political analyst)


 * 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)  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Robert Kelly (political analyst)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doing an official AfD as author attempted to manually create one. (see diff). &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  23:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – As author attempted to create this AfD, would it fall under WP:G7 instead?-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  23:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:1EVENT red dogsix (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I created Robert E. Kelly before discovering the other article. &mdash; fnielsen (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was actually trying to redirect the original article Robert Kelly (BBC interviewee) to the appropriate Robert Kelly (political analyst) and keep the Article for Deletion tag, not create the tag. I object the deletion because the event is being heavily cited as case study in racism, and as the third article by the above comment mentioned (and should have a merge tag), he's widely cited expert on Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clnup (talk • contribs) 14:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - the merger/redirect has made this discussion moot. The subject is clearly notable, even aside the notoriety from the BBC video, based on general notability. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I knew who this guy was before he went viral. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly notable as Korea expert. Teemeah 편지 (letter)  23:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - As the individual concerned already has several notably points, not just recent BBC interview, he was being interviewed because an expert.Johnkn63 (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – Does not meet criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Just because he is interviewed by journalists (with or without his family) does not make him notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Same with above opinion.--Altostratus (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the GNG probably even before the BBC coverage which simply brought an already notable person to our attention. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable, (does in fact meet WP:ACADEMIC), despite the interview. But the interview has a fame of its own which justifies it being included in the article.--Smerus (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How does he meet WP:ACADEMIC???--Jack Upland (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Criterion 7, as I note in my suggestion below to Keep the article. Sumana Harihareswara 05:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; fnielsen (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- meets criterion 7 of WP:ACADEMIC as an expert who "is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area" (specifically, Korea) and thus has "made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". Sumana Harihareswara 05:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There are many "experts" on Korea who are interviewed in the media: Dave Kang, Adam Cathcart, Aidan Foster-Carter, John Delury, Leonid Petrov, Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt etc. But they don't have articles. And they shouldn't. Talking heads are hardly notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets criterion 7 of WP:ACADEMIC and clearly passes WP:GNG. Not a BLP1E as he was notable as a respected analyst before the interview.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep He is certainly a notable academic, and this article references numerous reliable sources.RajasthanSab (talk) 18:22, 18 March 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.