Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Middlebrook

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Socks want to keep. All others (shoes, shirts, neckties) believe this topic is not notable. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Middlebrook[edit]

Peter Middlebrook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Written like a CV and appears to me as promotional, references are either based on interviews/quotations or are various papers he assisted with (for his job?). In my opinion, fails the criteria for notability, fails WP:BIO. HighKing++ 13:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Rich in content, notability clearly established and meets WP:GNG, but article must be improved from the outset. Some clear basic errors i.e. World Economic Forum and Davos instead of World Economic Forum, Davos. A good example of someone who should have had a profile a long time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simone2049 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC) - struck as sockpuppet !vote[reply]
Certainly rich in content written by the subject, but the superficial referenciness does not actually pass GNG as none of it passes the trifecta of reliable, independent and secondary. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason why this page should be deleted.

1. It meets the Basic Criteria (WP:BASIC), being a notable individual in various fields and having multiple valid and legitimate sources, hence, it proves notability. It does have Primary Sources, but I do agree it could have more, so an edit can be conducted. But yet again, I see no reason for deletion. P. Middlebrook is also a well-known economist and political scientist — an academic. He has made significant contributions in international & national development, poverty alleviating, and others, it seems. Therefore the page also has legitimacy under: WP:ANYBIO. He seems as a creative professional, an economist, and author. Legitimacy under WP:CREATIVE, WP:ECONOMIST, WP:AUTHOR. I could keep analysing this but it seems pretty straight-forward...the page is fine. Could be edited a bit, but I see no reason for deletion. This page, it seems, has been up and validated for years now, it's rather strange that an user, i.e. "HighKing" has found it in need of deletion. Looking on this users page, the only action that he has conducted was to flag pages for deletion. This, I suppose arises the question about what his motives might be. I presume that since Peter Middlebrook, the individual whose page is in question, is a public figure and known in business, academic, and international circles, some might try to conduct malicious actions towards others. Wikipedia is not the place for that. My vote would be to *Keep keep. --EnzoLeblanc (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC) — EnzoLeblanc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment Three 'keep' votes in a row. I would recommend AfD on page is removed, and notice placed on article to edit and improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simone2049 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, no. It's two "keep" votes, and deletion discussions go on for at least seven days unless there is overwhelming support for one outcome. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep' was highlighted in bold three times - am just amused why this is in AfD in any regard. Simone2049 (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This guy seems to have done quite some work in a lot of honourable fields. Sources check out. Why is this article proposed for deletion?

Meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:ANYBIO. Things seem in order. Maybe the article can be edited better; that’s surely an idea. No need for it to be deleted. It makes no sense. --CarolDegrasse (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC) — CarolDegrasse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Simone2049 claims "notability clearly established" but provides no reasoning as to why this is so. EnzoLeblanc is an account that appears to have been especially created to comment on this AfD and only has a total of 2 edits (yet appears familiar with WP and policies/guidelines). Nonetheless, they make the point that the individual meets WP:BASIC as "a notable individual in various fields and having valid and legitimate sources", but does not list any sources, and goes on to admin that the article has Primary Sources. The comments as to my motives for deletion are mischievous and without merit - I spend most of my time at AfD these days and I have no other reason to nominate this article for deletion other than it appears to be a puff piece and the purported notability of this individual does not appear to meet the criteria for notability. In a similar vein, the CarolDegrasse account has also been specially created to comment at this AfD and only has this single edit. Even putting aside the highly suspicious commenting at this AfD by newly created accounts, none of the Keep !votes have provided any evidence (beyond their opinion) that this article meets the criteria for notability. HighKing++ 20:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I read through the profile and I think he is an adviser to governments as claimed - here is a link to his own website. http://www.petermiddlebrook.com/content.php?pid=1 Frankly, it's embarrassing to have to justify why an adviser to the UN, World Bank, EU, and UK Government needs his notability assessed here. The page should never have had an AfD - it should have been a note to verify the information within the profile. Simone2049 (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Among the sources cited in the article I can find nothing other than works by Middlebrook or interviewing him, not about him, and I can find no significant coverage of him elsewhere. A very professional promotional job has clearly been done on this article, so we can assume that the best available sources have been presented there. As regards WP:ACADEMIC, which should be checked as an editor above has claimed that Middlebrook is an academic, there are only a couple of dozen citations to his work reported by Google Scholar and none of the other ways to pass that guideline are applicable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that there was a previous sock-infested "no consensus" deletion discussion under the title Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middlebrook in 2005, when our inclusion standards were much laxer. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did not say that this individual has legitimacy under the WP:ACADEMIC guidelines, he is not really an academic, as one can see. He is not a professor under some university. He does have legitimacy under WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE, WP:ECONOMIST, WP:AUTHOR, and meets (WP:BASIC) also.

Let's try an check his notability through links and perhaps even photos:

I would argue that Peter Middlebrook has notability and him being on wikipedia is rather legitimate, under the existing guidelines of Wikipedia. I looked around to see how many sources I could find on this person, and seems that I have found quite a lot. He appears writing books, articles, in photos with Prime Ministers, Ministers, Presidents. I think it proves enough notability. The article might need a better edit, but to put it up for deletion is ridiculous. --EnzoLeblanc (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • And which of those sources has independent significant coverage of Middlebrook, as required by WP:GNG? I'm willing to agree that he's very good at self-publicity, such as getting his photograph taken with famous people, but that is not what Wikipedia articles should be based on. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that EnzoLeblanc removed several previous comments and SPA notifications when making her or his previous edit. I really don't have the time or energy at the moment to sort things out, but must ask the closing admin to check the history of this discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the article has superficial referenciness, none of the cited sources achieve the trifecta of reliable, independent and secondary. It started as an autobiography and seems to have been lovingly polished ever since. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Likely paid-promotion; not seeing how subject meets WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. His consultancy group has been quoted in some BBC articles, but that's about it as far as third-party WP:RS coverage. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It does seem like this article was used as an attempt to game the various search engines. For example, if you look at the pages linked to this article we can see it is linked to Haile Gebrselassie and states: In the same year, he also worked with Peter Middlebrook and Abi Masefield he conceptualized the Great Ethiopian Run ... In a similar vein, it is linked to Martin Middlebrook and states His nephew is Peter Middlebrook, an economist and owner of business interests.. Thne there's related articles like Right-financing where the concept is claimed as an invention of .. you guessed it .. Peter Middlebrook. I'm starting to think this article is a complete sham. HighKing++ 11:31, 26 April 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Middlebrook&oldid=842085151"