Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Middlebrook (3rd nomination)

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 and salt. Discarding canvassed/sockpuppet votes, we have a clear consensus. Owen× ☎ 19:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Peter Middlebrook

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Peter Middlebrook
• Articles for deletion/Peter Middlebrook (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Peter Middlebrook (3rd nomination)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Peter Middlebrook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Recreation of page that has been twice deleted in two prior AfD discussions, the most recent in 2021. It doesn't appear that very much has changed. There is a 2024 podcast type interview, but this does not appear to me to contribute much to notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Economics, and Middle East. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• weak delete All the sources are of the form that imply notability, but they're just not robust enough as sources to really stand. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete for the third time and Salt. Promotional puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC).
• Keep Subject has made significant impacts and has independent coverage from The National, The Guardian and Journal of economic issues to meet WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOVTesleemah (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Tesleemah, I do not think that The National (Abu Dhabi) is a reliable source. The Guardian has passing mentions only that I see, and Journal of Economic Issues has only a citation to a paper -- I do not see SIGCOV. Am I missing something? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep The article adheres to the guidelines for biographies of living persons, and is based on verifiable information and maintains a neutral point of view. I also disagree with the editors regarding the dismissal of certain sources, such as The National (Abu Dhabi). While it may have bias in political matters related to the UAE, this does not extend to its coverage of individuals.

The criterion for notability is clearly defined in various sources. For instance, this excerpt aligns well with Wikipedia's notability criteria:

"Dr. Peter J. Middlebrook is a leading international economist specializing in emerging and frontier markets. His work has been featured in BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN, Time Magazine, the Financial Times, and MENA regional news. He led the technical development of the proposed Arab Stabilization Plan and has played a key role in the development of the New Silk Road for the US Government."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.148.242 (talk) 20:28, October 9, 2024 (UTC) — 87.241.148.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep Sufficient illumination in independent sources. Resistancefor (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC) — Resistancefor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Betterdryftify then delete. I hink that it matches wiki rules. I think we're starting to forget the ground rules of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resistancefor (talk • contribs) 22:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Lalibertaoulamort (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC) — Lalibertaoulamort (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. The only source that even conveys the appearance of contributing to GNG-based notability is the puff piece in The National. Past discussions have questioned its reliability — see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 274 § The National source and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 347 § Keeping content sourced to propaganda outlets for authoritarian regimes, but also to me it reads as surprisingly shallow when we're looking for depth. Also it's only one source and we need multiple. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  There are sources pointing to the significance of this man. I don't think we should delete the article. Maybe it should be reorganized or shortened, but the man obviously deserves to be mentioned in wikipedia.[1] Paralizatorsha (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC) — Paralizatorsha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep There are enough credible sources. I think the article complies with the WP:BIOKanamaharanama (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC) — Kanamaharanama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• KeepI think that if information about a person is available on official government website, then he or she meets WP:N BBgoodfor (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC) — BBgoodfor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

•  Administrator note I can't determine which of the SPAs above are sock or meatpuppets and which aren't, but some sort of illegitimate action is clearly taking place. The closing admin should consider this when weighting these !votes. I've also semi-protected this AFD in order to stop further disruption. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC) I forgot to link it, but see this SPI for details. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete After looking through sources and taking quick notes, references clearly do not establish any notability. 8 are passing mentions, 3 acknowledge the subject as one of the reviewers or compilers of a large report, 2 only cite subject's work and do not discuss in depth, 5 are self-reported, and at least one does not contain the name "Middlebrook". I cannot access The New Yorker article to see coverage here; but with all other references falling through, I do not think it would provide enough coverage to establish notability on its own. The 2 other possibly reliable refs otherwise in my opinion are the finance assessment in Kyrgyzstan and the Al Jazeera appearance. I admit I did not watch the 30 minute video to get a sense of the subject's part in the story coverage. I think all together, these still do not provide proof of notability.Cyanochic (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of significant coverage as discussed above, and WP:NOTINHERITED. Based on the analysis, by Cyanochic, all of the current references are either passing mentions, or unreliable sources, or only tangentially related to the subject, or all three. He has apparently partnered with a famous runner on a project. That does not mean he is also notable. Nor does being an expert on a topic - lots of scientists and other scholars (like me) are experts in something or another topic, but unless it’s covered in secondary sources, we’re not notable. The last remaining issue is whether to block this article’s re-creation. Based on loads of precedent, we must “salt” it. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2024 (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.