Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Bush (businessman)

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bush (businessman)[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO, in particular, 3d party coverage of the individual. PROD declined. Elizium23 (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it seems to me that based on the coverage the individual has received over time, he does make it past the general notability guideline. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are at least two newspaper sources that cover the individual and other newspaper sources that mention him. Passes WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mentions and interview-based journalism with no obvious independent research or adversarial questioning. This is not the in-depth coverage by independent third party sources that we're looking for. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passing mentions. that merely confirm his existence. don't see anything indepth to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Major newspapers cover the individual both as the topic since as early as 2005 and as part of a coporate team that have been managing a major debt crisis in the past year. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Castlemate (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's just a bloke with a career. A load of people have had those. I was a CEO once. I was an expert once. I run a business today. None of these make me notable, nor do they make him notable, not even the sporting thing he headed up. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When you were a CEO Fiddle Faddle, did The Age run a major article on your appointment as they did on Bush's appointment? Did you propose a debt-for-equity deal that caught the attention of The Herald-Sun in a major news article. When the "sporting thing he headed up" was in the news the The 7.30 Report thought it was notable enough to interview him on a nationally broadcast program. The Australian Financial Review is the nearest we come to in this country of the "independent third party source" that Stuart Yeates is looking for in journalism and they write of, or about, Bush on 21 occasions in the last 12 months. You may not be notable Fiddle Faddle but Peter Bush looks to be in my eyes. I'm sorry to personalise this discussion but the last contributor, in what amounted to little more than a "vote", has certainly done so. Castlemate (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been keen on the "I am sorry, but" construct. It is broadly the same as WP:WADR, and devalues any point made. You made your point earlier. I have made mine, too. Others will judge the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, and not enough WP:RS for WP:BIO. 06:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qworty (talk • contribs)
- Comment I just added this further reference to the article so as to help dissuade those of the opinion that Bush fails WP:GNG. The Australian – Bush joins Nine as chairman This is one of a number of press articles that provide "significant coverage" of the subject. It is in The Australian which is a "reliable source" and is "independent of the subject". It "address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content". It is not "a trivial mention". Castlemate (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with all the reasons by other Keeps. New worl (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Australian article does clearly show notability as head of major company. I note that FF's argument earlier could be used to delete essentially anything. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These sources 1, 2, 3 clearly go beyond passing mentions and are in reliable sources. J04n(talk page) 13:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citations provided establish notability per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2013 (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.