Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Buckingham (polemicist)

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. It seems like the delete camp has both the better arguments and better numbers, their key point being that the coverage of the subject by others is apparently inadequate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Buckingham (polemicist)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

no evidence of notability for this PR spokesman DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree. The evidence of notability is

his repeated appearance in the UK press at an international level
his repeated appearance in the UK media at an international level
attention paid to him by other NGOs
the length of his service (20 years) at the same employer
the breadth of his service at the same employer (he must be doing something right)
the attention paid to him by the American media (he is an international polemicist)
his chairmanship of a significant UK lobby group

All these points have been addressed in the footnotes to the article, which presently are eight in number.

Magnovvig (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lol, having a career one employer is not a signifier of notability. Please learn that "appearances" do not contribute to WP:Notability, but coverage about him does. Every company hires a spokesperson to issue statements to the media, but their being quoted does not warrant an article about them. Reywas92^Talk 17:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebut: It is not that he has been quoted that warrants an article about him. The individual has been published as an authority under his own byline; he thus qualifies as a polemical writer. This fact alone warrants an article about him. Please see WP:AUTHOR points 3 and 4(a) in addition to WP:BASIC. Magnovvig (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnovvig: WP:AUTHOR point 3 says:

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

and 4(a) says:

The person's work (or works) has ... become a significant monument

Neither of those seems to apply here: there's no evidence that his collective body of work is well-known or has been the subject of other people's work (both of which have to hold for 3 to apply), and his work definitely hasn't become a significant monument. I'm a bit confused, therefore, as to how these apply... YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 08:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you mention this difficulty, @YorkshireLad:. Let me explain. The polemicist in question works for a firm that has single-handedly redefined how agriculture works, and has changed our ideas about what we consume in a foxy way. The firm has been at the bleeding edge of agricultural technology and has needed to convince the western world of the value of its technology. The firm has employed Mark Armstrong to redefine our relationship to nature. Armstrong needs to be recognized and valued for his Herculean career and contribution. Armstrong is the Chairman (read: leader) of the polemical association that has maintained its iron fist on the tables of the nation for over 20 years. (see ref 6 - About ABC)

Check this against WP:AUTHOR 3&4a.

Armstrong deserves recognition in the same way that Andrew Wells does.

Magnovvig (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnovvig: Andrew Wells, the character from Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

But anyway, I'm a little confused, because you're now talking about someone called Mark Armstrong, not the Mark Buckingham (polemicist) who is the subject of the article. I'll assume that you mean Buckingham (but apologies if I'm wrong), and take your points in turn:

The polemicist in question works for a firm that has single-handedly redefined how agriculture works ... The firm has employed Mark Armstrong to redefine our relationship to nature. Assuming you're talking about Monsanto and its successors here. You're right, Monsanto is notable; however, notability is not inherited, so Buckingham isn't notable just because his company is notable.
Armstrong needs to be recognized and valued for his Herculean career and contribution. Notability is also not subjective, as far as possible; editors try to apply objective standards, because what one person thinks is important and deserves an article, others may not. Hence the requirement for coverage in reliable sources.
Armstrong is the Chairman (read: leader) of the polemical association that has maintained its iron fist on the tables of the nation for over 20 years. (see ref 6 - About ABC) Again, notability is not inherited, but in that case the organisation (the ABC) doesn't have an article of its own either.
Check this against WP:AUTHOR 3&4a. Sorry, but I still don't see it:
- Even if you argue that the collective body of work that Buckingham's work is significant, I don't see the coverage of that work in the independent and notable work or multiple independent periodical articles or reviews that WP:AUTHOR pt. 3 requires. Can you provide citations to such coverage?
- As far as I can tell, 4(a) refers to literal monuments, like The Cenotaph or Nelson's Column. Note that WP:AUTHOR is actually a set of guidelines for notability for all creative professionals. Thus, I don't think 4(a) really applies to authors at all, because it's hard to think how a written work could be a monument—I think it's more one to be used for artists or architects.

I hope that makes sense; in short, I think you'd need to provide evidence of coverage about Buckingham's work in someone else's notable work, or in multiple people's reviews, etc., to have a claim until WP:AUTHOR 3. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 21:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YorkshireLad Yes, I meant Buckingham not Armstrong. Thanks.

Yes, Buffy the vampire slayer.

I recognize that notability is not inherited but who do you think is responsible for the way the products were sold to the marketplace if not for the chief polemicist of the firm? Monsanto is a legal fiction for a group of people that changed the way the world eats. Buckingham is the brains behind the group. Eight references, amongst which three op-eds in a world-class newspaper warrant Buckingham's inclusion on wikipedia.

Magnovvig (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnovvig, I appreciate you feel he should have an article, but you really do need to provide sources specifically to back up his notability. Going through the eight references you mention (referring to the numbering on this version of the page, in case anyone changes the order or adds new ones: [1])

Piece by Buckingham, not about him.
Ditto
Ditto
Article about Monsanto,^[a] not about him, with just quotes from him as its representative.
Article with just a quote from him, not principally about Buckingham (or indeed his company)
Source establishing him as chair of an organisation, but not an evidently notable one; also not a source independent of the subject.
This one has significant coverage of him; it's a local newspaper, so perhaps not a major source, but a reliable one.
Not a reliable source, it's an interest group.

As User:Reywas92 noted, getting published in a national newspaper isn't an indicator of notability as a writer, but people writing about the writing does. I'm not seeing any evidence of that, which make a claim to WP:AUTHOR dubious.

As for WP:GNG, we'd want significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources independent of the subject. We have one here, which isn't enough. I couldn't find any others when I looked, but I'd happily change my mind if you could find more sources like the Eastern Daily Press article. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ All companies are, in a sense, legal fictions. Monsanto is a legal fiction for 25,500 people, though, and we can't have an article about all of them. I'm sure Buckingham is an intelligent man, but to claim him as the brains behind a company founded in 1901 feels a bit tenuous. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, YorkshireLad thanks for your detailed and reasonable argument. I'll try my best to get you onside as per your last point. Magnovvig (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above: doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 21:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@YorkshireLad:: I have significantly amended this morning the article on Buckingham. Is the ref name emza "Emotioneel zaaddebat op Food Filmfestival" at Wageningen University akin to the Eastern Daily Press article? And if so, will you change your vote? Magnovvig (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnovvig, I'm not sure if it's equivalent, as it's not clear who's written the article, and what level of editorial oversight the publication has. I'd appreciate other editors' input on this—pinging Reywas92 and DGG, who've also commented on this AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YorkshireLad (talk • contribs) 12:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnovvig, my apologies: as I forgot to sign my previous comment, the notification for you (and for Reywas92 and DGG) would not have worked. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 14:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain my vote, these sources mention Buckingham's statements in the course of his routine job to make corporate statements; none are coverage about him. Reywas92^Talk 17:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No proof from secondary sources that this person is notable at all by our standards. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've examined the revised article and its references. None of them give substantial coverage. They are either written by him, or a report of what he said at an event, or a mere notice. None of this shows notability. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:MILL, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NOTWEBHOST. WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:SIGCOV. Short of someone like Sarah Huckabee Sanders, PR people and spokesmen are not notable, period. There's lots of statements by him, but essentially nothing about him. This is essentially spam for him. In 2008, we could have excused that, but it's 2020, and everybody knows we are a charity and an encyclopedia, not a free web host. The revised article is at least written in standard Queen's English, so WP:TNT no longer applies. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2020 (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.

[1] All companies are, in a sense, legal fictions. Monsanto is a legal fiction for 25,500 people, though, and we can't have an article about all of them. I'm sure Buckingham is an intelligent man, but to claim him as the brains behind a company founded in 1901 feels a bit tenuous. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

[a]