Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John de Groot

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 delete. JForget 00:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John de Groot[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Irredeemably promotional and unable to be rewritten in a neutral form. Despite his "vast legal career" and being the "reigning local champion" goat racer (?) he is marginally notable at best, if all the article padding is removed. The article is basically advertising for a legal firm. Wikipedia is not free advertising. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: earlier PROD denied. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nomination ContinueWithCaution (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - the references aren't sufficient to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Flowery prose notwithstanding, invidual seems to fail WP:N. Also note a lot of coats laying about... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacks sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. The passage about goat racing is interesting. How do you race a goat? Do you ride it? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No legitimate basis for deletion provided. Article may need minor depeacocking, but there's no argument that the subject doesn't meet the GNG, as a simple Google News search demonstrates, or that the subject doesn't qualify for his professional writing or as the author of a notable, slightly wacky book (which is usually more readily accepted as evidence of notability than writing a serious one, regrettably). According to his website, he's retired from a relatively high-ranking academic position which appears to satisfy WP:PROF, although that's not mentioned in the article. There's clearly more going on here than is apparent on the surface. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "There's clearly more going on here than is apparent on the surface" Please clarify. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Mr de Groot's promotion of goat-racing has inspired significant coverage in two cast-iron reliable sources on the opposite side of the world.[1][2] I'm no great fan of the formula that means that two "human interest" articles in reliable sources equates to notability, but the subject would appear to pass that test. And yes, Johnny, it appears that the goats do have jockeys. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Puff, fluff and flim-flam. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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.