Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Newman (writer)

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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Newman (writer)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure he meets GNG and seems to clearly fail WP:AUTHOR. The article seems to have been created by someone with a COI and the article definitely needs a re-write. Mattlore (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While WP:RUBBISH is not a reason to delete, there doesn't seem to be any notable works judging from the article itself; most lead to external sources and do not have an article on WP, possibly because they're not notable enough. A lot of the info isn't cited, though we may wish to wait for people to try to find sources and either remove the false information or put in sources. --User:Kris159 (talk | legacy) 12:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - conflict of interest, promotional and, most important, no independent sources that attest the subject's notability have been brought forward. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - COI, probably promotional. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per notability and COI concerns. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 03:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 20:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll leave it up to you guys to decide. Everything in the profile is accurate . I figured the writing of Connecting the Clouds - the history of the Internet in New Zealand was sufficient reason to have a paqe, or three New Zealand history books published by Penguin and another on the way? I'll rewrite the page if you like but I'm not big on self promotion. The idea was to have a reference point to keep a record of activites and achievement.Keith Newman 21:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Newman (talk • contribs)
Keep. I've done some cleanup of the article and added some references, and I think he meets notability criteria. In particular, the New Zealand Listener review [1] is important because the Listener's book reviews are widely read. [2] is substantial, but I had not heard of the Chrysalis Seed Trust before today. I am a little worried that I didn't find more reviews from mainstream sources.-gadfium 02:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Has done more than enough to meet WP:ANYBIO notability criteria. The awards listed are significant national awards. Newman is a regular interviewer on New Zealand's national radio and network programmes. He has also contributed in a significant way to articles and literature about the countries history. Finding corroborative evidence has proved easy on a simple Google search with many citations from National newspapers and media.NealeFamily (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)NealeFamily (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (speak) @ 11:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 14:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per passing WP:ANYBIO (per his awards) and WP:AUTHOR#3 as his works has been the subject of multiple independent articles and reviews. Cavarrone (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2012 (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.