Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noel Burnet

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. Merge discussion can be opened on article talk page if desired. ansh 666 07:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Burnet[edit]

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

A person who went to Newington College and then opened a Koala park. He does not appear to be notable as an academic. No disclosed research or equivalent Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Koala Park Sanctuary. Reading the article he doesn't seem notable outside of creating the park(he doesn't seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC), so his history with the park could be added to that page(what isn't there already). 331dot (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! From Baby miss fortune 21:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! From Baby miss fortune 21:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite sufficient here to support WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe: I may be wrong but most of those seem to be about his work with the sanctuary, (and some seem like brief mentions that don't establish notability) which as I state above seems to be what he is notable for and as such the article should be merged. The question is, is this person notable as an academic or something else. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But I think there is sufficient for the subject of this article to stand alone in this instance.

Delete not notable on his own. Not enough notability to justify having an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aoziwe's sources establish do notability as a prominent early conservationist with quite a bit of coverage in reliable sources. There is an ongoing problem with this author utterly failing to understand notability guidelines: even here, where the person does actually seem to be quite notable, the article completely fails to explain why, instead mentioning crap like what some English royal thought of his park and him having his photo taken for the Sydney Morning Herald. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: Specifically which sources give in depth coverage of this person? Most of the ones I looked at only gave brief mentions of this person, which does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look harder. It would not be difficult to write a pretty solid article on this guy (although Castlemate with his Newington-cruft never does), though I'm ill-inclined to clean up yet another piece of his mess tonight. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you to clean up the article, only to indicate which sources given proper coverage. If you don't wish to, fair enough. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Koala Park Sanctuary. I'm with 331dot on this one; I can't see much to establish him as notable himself, but this could be covered quite well in the sanctuary article. A lot of Aoziwe's search seems to reveal routine/passing/duplicate coverage, although if I've missed something I'd be pleased to reconsider. Frickeg (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- an early conservationist with sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article. I don't see a reason for a merge, since it's easier to keep a bio under the person's name. The article is sufficiently well cited at the moment, so it's not a TNT-redirect either. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E is a reason to merge; if the sanctuary is the only thing they are known for, there shouldn't be a separate article about them. There are claims of significant coverage, but none has been offered yet that I have seen. I too would be happy to reconsider(as Frickeg would above). 331dot (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did the park make the man or did the man make the park in this instance? By this logic perhaps the park should be merged to here. In this instance I think there is enough for both articles to stand on their own. Aoziwe (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aoziwe and The Drover's Wife. The wiki article is currently sub-par, but as a pioneering conservationist and koala expert, there is enough significant coverage on him in reliable notable sources. SunChaser (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? 331dot (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but wouldn't be opposed to a merge. Might be just enough significant independent coverage to pass the WP:GNG, but as others have queried, is he actually notable or is the coverage of the Koala Park only sufficient to give notability to the Park? Remember that notability is not inherited. Kb.au (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2017 (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.