Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Standish

Alex Standish

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

This is not the subject of substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. He does get some mention and recognition as an expert in his field, however expertise alone does not make one notable, and this subject's accomplishments are not sufficient to show any significant or enduring impact (see WP:ANYBIO). This subject also fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:WRITER because this subject enjoys only no-depth or low-depth citation and mention. His own publications are numerous, but this establishes that the topic of his discussion is likely notable, meaning the subject WP:INHERITs nothing from his own publications alone. JFHJr (㊟) 22:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that this person is notable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Despite poor sourcing of the article a quick search seems to me to indicate sufficient information, particularly from the BBC, to indicate his being noted by them as an intelligence expert particularly around the time of the Iraq war and as a commentator. The BBC and Newsweek citing of his views and introducing him as an intelligence expert and editor of one of Jane's magazines seems sufficient evidence of notability. Perhaps I should add more of these. I am not sure what haapened with regard to his honorary post a Durham but it seems to have been deleted: deleted (google cached) (Msrasnw (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Comment – Being a commentator without substantial coverage of the commentator himself indicates the topic of comment was actually notable; not the commentator (see WP:INHERIT). Pundits aren't notable for having opened their mouths. At any rate, it should be clear that no substantial coverage is of this commentator. And unfortunately no notability guideline is based on expertise, or being acknowledged as one in a source. I know what happened with Durham, and it's not the subject of discussion here. See this subject's thread at WP:BLPN if you'd like that discussion. Please state which notability guideline or criteria you think this subject passes under such as WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:ACADEMIC; and why. JFHJr (㊟) 23:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Oh dear. That link to the thread certainly complicates the picture. I wish I had seen it before contributing here and my query related to his position at University of Durham. I think it can be useful for us to have info. on those who are media experts and his work at Jane's and being an editor of a journal there and a producer for Panorama etc and cited by the BBC/Newsweek as an expert all seem to meet wp:creative #1 - The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. And while there is the possibility that the info in the thread you mention adds support for his being "high profile" I prefer to remove my keep. Sorry for my contribution here. I should be more careful to check elsewhere first.(Msrasnw (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Given the reliably sourced information from the BLPN thread, we would be remiss not to mention it in an article about the subject. But, given the marginal academic notability and the failure to pass WP:PERP, I think we're better off just not having an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Editor of Jane's Intelligence Digest is notable, and that's regardless of other considerations. I am reluctant to disagree with David E, but I do not think the Durham material relevant to his notability , and thus can be properly excluded. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 15:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The article certainly makes claims to notability: UN, BBC producer, respected commentator, author, Jane's editor... in a perfectly-sourced world these would all combine to make it simple to find 50 references. As it is, the sole reference is to an interview where he was acting as a commentator—by itself not a notable event. However, targeted g-searches (such as "Alex Standish Janes") shows up dozens of cases where he is quoted or interviewed by mainstream media. Some are trivial mentions, some are feature length. As a BLP, this article needs a LOT of trimming down to only contain well-sourced information, but it passes the WP:N-test for me, if barely. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]