Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Pearson

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. Sandstein 14:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Pearson

Warren Pearson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Non-notable official on a government panel that awards civil honours. Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate (talk · contribs) whose primary work is to flood WP with articles on people from Newington College such as generic artists such as Ian Porter (commercial artist), members of social clubs such as Deuchar Gordon, and generic public servants such as Warwick Cathro, and local council members such as Aubrey Murphy (mayor).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsfvdf54gbb (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Longhair\^talk 02:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot find anything to support notability. Aoziwe (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No claim to notability - and on top of that, being that the Australia Day link is dead, there's no sources about his life at all apart from the honours list. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This bio has been updated and the multiple references now suggest that Pearson's decade long management of an important national organisation marks him as notable. Twice honoured by his country he seems to be rather more than "an official on a government panel". Clearly the nominator of the AfD knows little of Australian civil honours as they have nothing to do with the National Australia Day Council. I hope in future users will take more care in attempting to delete articles in which they clearly have no expertise or understanding. Castlemate (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2001, 15,000 one-off awards of Centenary Medals were made, in this case it was for organising a centenary event. I had a classmate who got one for being on a youth parliament. So a CM doesn't prove anything especially when the underlying achievement is itself NN. Further for AM, it only requires 'local activity' Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable government funtionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would you be able to explain how you have come to this conclusion? Castlemate (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Since when are Members of the Order of Australia not notable? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Member of the Order of Australia is the second-lowest award in the Order of Australia system, with plenty of people who wouldn't pass WP:GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In 2001, 15,000 one-off awards of Centenary Medals were made, in this case it was for organising a centenary event. I had a classmate who got one for being on a youth parliament. So a CM doesn't prove anything especially when the underlying achievement is itself NN. Further for AM, it only requires 'local activity' Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request. As Pearson is not an academic or educator could someone please move this vexatious AfD to an edition sorting cat that is more appropriate than Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators. As the nominators many attacks this month on my bios are now being "speedied" into history I'm sure this notable Australian will go the same way if viewed by appropriate editors. Castlemate (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No third party sources that outlines credible notability. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- neither his position or awards or notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the nominator Adsfvdf54gbb, states (in part) "Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate whose primary work is to flood WP with articles on people from Newington College...", the same could be said about the nominator ie. "part of a series of spam afds whose primary work is to flood afd with nominations of articles created by Castlemate." The nominator has edited wikipedia since November 17, 2017, in that time they have only worked on afd, nominations and subsequent comments on those, curious for a new editor, and of the 10 nominations they have made, all of the articles were created by Castlemate, this has all the hallmarks of a vexacious person who has something against Castlemate. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, further, the nominator describing the National Australia Day Council as "a government panel that awards civil honours" is like dismissing the New York Public Library as "a library in an american city." Coolabahapple (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Request. My recent update of this bio doesn't seem to have been saved but has now. I would appreciate it if all those calling for a delete could revisit this entry and reconsider your opinion of non-notability. The AfD is still listed incorrectly as "academic or educator" and hasn't been corrected. Old refs that provided information on Person's work history seem to have gone from the web. I will endeavour to reference those as soon as posible. Castlemate (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the expansion of the article does not address notability concerns.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The grasping at straws with the addition of vast swathes of stuff totally irrelevant to Pearson in the lede illustrates that this is hopelessly non-notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, blunders to the article are still present. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I actually think this isn't all that far off, but the lack of any independent in-depth coverage is a problem. The Hirst foreword and a couple of the other sources get him close but not close enough. (AMs, as has been established multiple times, are not automatically notable - let alone Centenary Medallists!!) Frickeg (talk) 10:20, 15 December 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.