Talk:Martin Roll
Add topicAppearance
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Zazpot
| This article was nominated for deletion on 18 September 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Martin Roll article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
| This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Referring to the proposed deletion, I would like to argue that the subject conforms with both WP:GNG and WP:PROMO - WP:PROMO: The article is written in a neutral style using third-party references independent of the subject except for one case where I could not find 3rd party sources supporting his position as Distinguished Fellow at INSEAD. The other sources include CNN, BBC and Bloomberg. - WP:GNG: China Daily carried a whole back page on Mr. Roll, which I think should be sufficient for general notability requirements when combined with the fact that he is a well-received author of several books.
Tobias Tan (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- One source with substantial coverage (China Daily) is not sufficient for WP:GNG, regardless of how many books someone has authored. For a start, the source needs to be reliable and to be independent of its subject. I am not sure China Daily (a state-run paper) qualifies as reliable.
- Several of the other sources are passing mentions only.
- Given that WP:BLP applies, I'm going to remove some of the unsourced or poorly-sourced claims from the article. Let's see what remains after that. Zazpot (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I've now done that. Having done so, I'm inclined to the view that WP:GNG is met in this case, so I have removed the notability template. Zazpot (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)