Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Parry (2nd nomination)

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. JForget 00:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Parry[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Has one proper reference in Salon.com, and then the "Polk Award Winners" reference appears to be trivial. The other eleven references are from the subject's own site. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Having won the Polk award is enough to show notability, per the previous AFD. Subject is worth a short article. Plvekamp (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This journalist has made "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record." Indeed, one could plausibly argue that the Iran-Contra scandal never would have become public knowledge, if not for Robert Parry's investigative journalism. SIGNED: Rick Crawford. 12.72.149.111 (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC) (I've made several wiki edits over the years, but I've never bothered to create an official Account here. Perhaps that means neither my article edits, nor my opinion in this discussion are valued? My IP is dynamically assigned, hence it's not a useful identifier. Anyone is free to contact me via email: Crawford (AT) CS.UCDAVIS.EDU )[reply]

Keep - The Polk Award fulfills WP:BIO establishing notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2009 (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.