Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Dawson

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 speedy keep as per speedy keep reason 1.(non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Dawson[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)

BLP without working references. Not obviously notable. Rathfelder (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my very modest WP:HEY. User:Rathfelder, I quite agree that page was "not obviously notable," Indeed, I presumed that it was just another PROMO for a self-promoting business guru. Nevertheless, I ran my usual news archive searches on the book titles - and, lo, notability appeared. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here: is a gBooks search [1]. Page can certainly be improved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved thank you. Happy to withdraw my nomination. Rathfelder (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2019 (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.