Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Ross (blogger)

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.

John Ross (blogger)[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[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)

Fails WP:NPROF, and WP:BASIC for that matter, due to lack of multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Sources in the article are mostly brief mentions in the context of his time as one of a largish group of advisors to Ken Livingstone, former mayor of London, and are therefore not WP:SIGCOV. The exceptions to this are op-ed pieces, interviews and commercial book-store websites (and therefore not reliable/independent). The Guardian "profile" is a single-sentence mention summing to 15 words. No instances of WP:SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE. WP:BLP article so should be based on high-quality sources. FOARP (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, Journalism, and China. TJMSmith (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ There's a sportsperson with the same name, nothing found for this person. no sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I expect there will be a WP:AUTHOR case here. We need to look for further reviews for:
- China’s Great Road: Lessons for Marxist Theory and Socialist Practices (2021) [1]
- Thatcher and Friends: The Anatomy of the Tory Party (1983)
- The Great Chess Game (2016)[[2]]
- Don’t Misunderstand China’s Economy (date?)

It's difficult because a number of relevant sources are likely to not be available online because they're from the early 80's or in Chinese.Jahaza (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's also difficult because there's another John Ross, author of You Don't Know China, who has a web presence as a China expert. Jahaza (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This[3] Evening Standard article, was actually published in October 2007 and is SIGCOV. Jahaza (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's substantial coverage of Ross in Andrew Hosken's Ken: The Ups and Downs of Ken Livingstone (you can see some of that content here[4]). That plus the Evening Standard article, plus the book reviews already identified, plus this in the Sunday Telegraph[5]. (There are also other less useful sources that document smaller facts and opinions[6][7][8][9][10][11][12])Jahaza (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jahaza, I'm not sure about the WP:NAUTHOR pass but I'm OK to withdraw based on the Evening Standard and book coverage. There's already a Delete !vote on the board so I can't withdraw at this point though unless Oaktree b withdraws - what do you think Oaktree? FOARP (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rescinding my vote above. I'm ok if it gets kept, with the new sources, as above. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Oaktree b. In our defence, the refs in the article are bad and the many other John Rosses out there complicated performing a WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2023 (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.