Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Peters (media executive)

Michael Peters (media executive)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:JOURNALIST. Run of the mill coverage of this executive who used to run Euronews, but not much in terms of in-depth of independent from the subject (interviews, press releases) which would indicate this is a notable individual under our guidelines. Pilaz (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and France. Pilaz (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. There is plenty of coverage in independent secondary sources – recent analysis of his leadership, including examination of recent controversies involving Euronews in this 2020 article in Arabian Business, for example. @Pilaz: Did you do a thorough search for coverage per WP:BEFORE before nominating? Worth checking Wikipedia Library and French and German sources as well. Even when you discount primary sources (originating from Africanews and Euronews) and Q&A interviews, there is easily enough to satisfy WP:BASIC. Also, I'm not sure WP:JOURNALIST even applies in the first place since he's a media exec, not a writer. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Q&A interiews are usually not considered independent at AfD and are usually primary sources. See WP:INTERVIEW for a full explanation. I'd like to see WP:THREE, because the sum of everything I've come across does not seem to satisfy the GNG. Pilaz (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Arabian Business piece is also predominantly an interview, although I agree it does ask more critical questions that suggest fact-checking and analysis. Pilaz (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of what I see are PR-type business articles, which aren't good for notability because they are promotional and usually not independent. The one article that seems to be about him is the Arabian Business one, but it will take more, IMO, to show that there is more than promotion going on. Lamona (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is literally so much coverage about him in multiple languages, that it will take a very long time to sort through. Just added a New York Times article that would at least help pass WP:BASIC. Will try to remember to come back to this later, but the point is, time and resources should be spent on searching for references and improving the article rather than just nominating for deletion without any WP:BEFORE. Conversely, it would be difficult for someone to aggregate every single piece of coverage about Michael Peters that exists and prove that it doesn't add up to at least WP:BASIC. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Included another article in which his career is being described. It was published by French newspaper Libération in 2012: https://www.liberation.fr/medias/2012/02/09/eurostar_794664/ Zamekrizeni (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That NYT article has a one sentence quote from him; it is not about him at all and what he says in that article is not what is in the sentence (fails validation). The Liberation one is about him. I see that as possibly meeting GNG as there are two articles about him. As a BIO, though, we must be careful that all stated facts are from reliable sources. He was not mentioned on the about page for Africa news, and the remainder of that section is from a press release. I removed the about page and the facebook citation (not a reliable source). If those facts cannot be sourced the data should be removed from the article. If, as you say, there is "literally so much coverage" it should be possible to source those facts from a reliable source. (Yes, I know that AFD is not cleanup, but sometimes cleanup is needed to assess the article. Also, I can't help myself.)Lamona (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The NYT piece only offers a brief quote, which is a passing mention and not independent, and the Libération article is an interview, so primary and not WP:INDEPENDENT. The suggestion that no BEFORE has been done is questionable (as a side note, this nomination was made as part of the NPP process), unless one significantly lowers the BIO bar to include material that is not in-depth, not independent, or not secondary. Pilaz (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. We can keep going and evaluate one article at a time, sure. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have read all the comments more carefully now and think it's really great that everyone is engaged. Let's all get editing! Cielquiparle (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the Libération article is an interview. It contains some quotes of him, but I wouldn't consider it an interview. It is more of a profile or portrait, in my opinion Zamekrizeni (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the Liberation article counts towards notability per WP:GNG as it includes independent observations on the part of the journalist which put the quotes from Michael Peters himself into context. @Zamekrizeni If you are !voting to keep the article, start a new line and add "*Keep" (as I did above) and briefly explain which two or more articles you think count towards notability. The main notability guideline to reference is here WP:GNG (general notability guideline) and then the lower standard is WP:BASIC. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cielquiparle The "Women in Tech" cite is not independent (such bios are usually supplied by the biographee). There may be a better source, else that sentence could be removed. Note that I removed some unnecessary sources (one good one per fact is enough), and I removed the NYT source and that sentence because that information could not be verified in that source. Should an actual source be found for that information it could be added back in. Lamona (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona Could you please move this discussion to the Talk page? I didn't even make that edit so not sure why I am being pinged in an AfD discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona: To clarify: I did not add Women in Tech but I did actually carefully reword the sentence citing The New York Times per your concern, so as not to overstate. But whatever, this discussion belongs on the article Talk page, not here. The very fact that this AfD discussion has turned into article workshopping, plus the nominator's NPP comment suggest to me that this was more of an article cleanup session rather than a genuine AfD discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPP recommends nominating articles at AfD which fall below the threshold for notability after a BEFORE. It's not uncommon for the articles to be improved in the process as more scrutiny is given to the sources in the article. Pilaz (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]