Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Maric

Add links
Source: 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 deleted by DGG as WP:CSD#G5. Jenks24 (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Maric

Paul Maric (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)

An advertorially toned BLP that lacks sources that discusses the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is mostly the show's web site and pieces by the subject. The article is cited to interviews, YouTube, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Co-hosts a nn show; does not meet WP:ENT. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the above iVote is from the article's creator. I had asked them if they had any association with the subject a while back: diff. My post was removed without a response: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the subject looks like they should be notable, after I excluded social media sites, and the subject's own sites, all I could see was other sites presenting material by the subject. I could not see any IRS material about the subject. The subject does seem to be respected and prolific based on sites presenting the subject's material, but I cannot see material supporting WP:NEXIST to support GNG. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. I might be convinced to change my opinion if someone can show me some IRS. Aoziwe (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mention this in the Keep ivote below, but I'm surprised that this was proposed for deletion. A quick Google of 'Paul Maric radio' shows a number of reputable sources that mention him (see [1][2][3]). Southoftheyarra (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC) — Southoftheyarra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
duplicate iVote struck. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I’ve been following him for some time and in the automotive industry he’s a highly reputable and authoritative source for automotive content. I regularly see him on television commenting on automotive topics and he is all over the radio. He was recently quoted by Channel 9 ((Australian television network) see [4]) and his work is constantly referenced by US publications (see [5][6][7][8][9][10]) and he guest publishes on UK publications[11]. I was surprised to see this come up as recommended for deletion given how prolific he is to automotive journalism in Australia. For the record, I have no association with this person or the article's creator, but believe they are WP:N. Southoftheyarra (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but please note it is not material a subject produces and presents either directly or via others, but material independently written about them we need. See my !vote above. Aoziwe (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned above in response to your iVote that there is corresponding independent material (it's included in the references) by reputable publications that establishes this person as a notable character. In addition, the links I included above are all reputable international publications that independently quote material published by him. In my opinion, he meets the requirements of WP:N by virtue of information contained within those links and his prolific involvement in automotive journalism. Southoftheyarra (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://radiotoday.com.au/mrn-in-gear-with-caradvice/
  2. ^ https://mumbrella.com.au/caradvice-video-news-bulletin-podcast-366883
  3. ^ http://www.bandt.com.au/media/macquarie-media-launches-radio-show-partnership-caradvice-com
  4. ^ https://finance.nine.com.au/2017/08/25/12/47/test-driving-the-new-holden-commodore-zb
  5. ^ https://www.carthrottle.com/post/expect-the-incoming-bmw-z4-to-be-completely-different-to-the-supra/
  6. ^ https://www.autoevolution.com/news/bmw-australia-boss-swears-2019-z4-and-toyota-supra-will-drive-differently-120793.html
  7. ^ http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1113025_new-toyota-supra-and-bmw-z4-to-offer-unique-driving-characteristics
  8. ^ http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1110935_potential-2019-ford-ranger-raptor-spied
  9. ^ http://www.carscoops.com/2017/10/can-kia-stinger-take-on-all-aussie.html
  10. ^ https://www.autoevolution.com/news/kia-stinger-demolishes-holden-commodore-ss-v-chevrolet-ss-in-1-4-mile-race-120960.html
  11. ^ http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/tesla/model-3/100317/new-tesla-model-3-review
As I mentioned earlier, I have no affiliation with the content creator or the subject of the WikiPedia entry. I joined WikiPedia with the sole intent of updating entries that mentioned the subject. Southoftheyarra (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been confirmed by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Susana Hodge. Southoftheyarra (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I made K.e.coffman clear now as I missed his question sandwitched in the crowded talk. No intentions of offending him but right after that the discussion took place and that's sad. Anyway, I still think he is very famous in the automotive industry and when I published this article almost 12 links were made to the article which was a very positive response. Hope you guys do the assessment keeping in view the field he is working in, Thank you! NoMoreHate (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC) struck due to sockpuppetry power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again Yes I agree the subject is prolific, and seems to have a very good reputation, but, I still see no references about the subject other than the subject's own web site which is as primary as they come. There is lot of references to material by the subject. I am happy to stand corrected if there is such material. Aoziwe (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I posted three links in response to your initial iVote above, they are references [1], [2] and [3] in the ref list. They are independent articles from reputable media outlets that reference the subject. Southoftheyarra (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[1] and [3] are identical and are only the briefest of mentions and state a combined experience of 30 years with other presenters. In this the subject could have only 6 months experience. These two references offer no help to the notability of the subject and certainly allow no in depth material to be written about the subject. [2] states even less about the subject. Aoziwe (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Like I said, it was just what I found after a brief Google search. I'll bow out of this discussion now. As I mentioned earlier, I joined WikiPedia when I came in to make edits/improvements to this entry and link to it from other WikiPedia mentions of the person — I'm not across processes and procedures for notability. Southoftheyarra (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The page creator NoMoreHate has been blocked for sock-puppetry, and I've stricken his comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll offer one last contribution to this discussion. After a closer review of WP:N, this person meets the guidelines for WP:CREATIVE, in particular "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." As cited in references [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11], these third party reputable publications cite the person and their work, thus meeting the requirements of WP:N. While the article appears to have been created by a now blocked user, it shouldn't affect the validity of the article in question. Southoftheyarra (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If for some reason this survives CSD (which is unconscionable at this point given by the block of the creator and suspicious bludgeoning above by a SPA), it should be deleted because he is not notable. Additionally, most of the sources that allege to prove his notability are just opinion pieces either written by the subject or written to include contributory one liners about cars that he happens to provide. Nihlus 02:14, 4 November 2017 (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/Paul_Maric&oldid=1070618020"