Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Bond

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bond[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)

The chief claim to notability that is made in the lede of this article is that the subject is wealthy. The sources are passing mentions of humdrum events in the main, with one or two weak sources presented, the 'Who's Who' entry isn't actually one, for instance - it does rather feel like Mr Bond has shelled out a few of his many hundreds of millions of dollars and had a page made for him. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 17 sources cited, including international publications the Wall St Journal, CNBC, Fox News, both of Australia's major national newspapers, and numerous major metropolitan newspapers. There might be a couple of references in there to events you've deemed "humdrum", but they don't detract from the major. independent, national and international news coverage the subject has received. Surely the subject is notable based on that coverage? Further the subject also fulfills the additional criteria for notabliity in being included in a national dictionary of biography. He happens to be wealthy as a result of his contributions to the business world, science, and his leadership of major companies. I'll update the intro so it's not so focused on wealth if you prefer, but I also don't see why being wealthy somehow negates the subject fulfilling Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Theronswanson (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Theronswanson. While the article is written in a somewhat promotional tone and should be wikified, there is ample material on the page supporting WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His coverage seems to be significant. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I started checking the sources and three of the first six cited sources were articles from national Australian dailies and were substantially about the subject. The sixth was a feature on CNBC about him. Bond clearly meets WP:GNG. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2022 (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.