Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Zeihan

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. Withdrawn. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Zeihan[edit]

[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)

Many of the sources are unreliable, non-independent, or not focused on Mr. Zeihan as an individual, but rather on his books. While some of his books may be notable, notability is not inherited from them. The Times-Republican piece is the only one I can find online that represents in-depth coverage in a reliable source, but one is not enough. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC) Withdraw appears to be notable per WP:NAUTHOR per consensus below. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Geography. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Australia, New Zealand, Missouri, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple book reviews in there along with the Guardian which definitely at least demonstrates if not proves notability. My issue with the article is that it reads very promotionally and needs to be fundamentally rewritten, possibly thru TNT. SportingFlyer T·C 23:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Passes AUTHOR with [1], [2] and this is about the ideas in his book [3] Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is notable and clearly meets WP: NAUTHOR Otuọcha (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For sources not independent of the subject but his book is literally a translation that he is notable so far the book wasn't co-authored. There were also/seems to see some sources that talked about him. That is not WP: INHERIT. How do the sources not pass WP: NAUTHOR, when there are clear review of books example by Publishers weekly, Washington Post and Kirkus Review. Do it need any other non variable to meet notability since the article and its subject falls under the article aspect of a book writer (an author). Otuọcha (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the case per WP: BEFORE is being promotional. Then, it should be rewritten and not subjected to AFD! Otuọcha (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2024 (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.