Deletion of Paul A. Broad

Comment: interviews of a subject/news reports where a subject has been asked for their views, depending on the source, may reflect (in part?) that they "have made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.", meeting  , eg. ABC News (Australia)|ABC News has https://search-beta.abc.net.au/index.html?siteTitle=news#/?query=%22Paul%20Broad%22&page=4&configure%5BgetRankingInfo%5D=true&configure%5BclickAnalytics%5D=true&configure%5BuserToken%5D=anonymous-5e2cba58-8de1-4edf-9bd8-d6c9381d8866&configure%5BhitsPerPage%5D=10&sortBy=ABC_production_all_latest|around 40 reports over years in which Broad provides an opinion as the head of major infrastructure enterprises
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: Paul Broad was a notable figure when it came to transport & roads and politics during the term of a number of premiers of New South Wales and the sources show there is clear independent coverage. While made in good faith (as the page is a mess, but note ), and while the nominator actually bothered to check the sources (which is commendable!), the problem with the nomination that it makes an (erroneous) assumption that if someone is interviewed then the source is automatically not notable. This is not correct, as none of , ,  or  say that interviews are unreliable sources that can't be used to assess notability. I accept that (in general) some interviews are clearly promotional but there are enough sources in this article that clearly are independent and reliable. When you look at sources 1 and 9 (for example), they're by a major regional newspaper (the Sydney Morning Herald, one of Australia's most well-known newspapers), and are done by the paper's transport editor, and are clearly independent coverage of him. If they can't be used as reliable sources then most stuff on Wikipedia couldn't be. Quite clearly there are several sources in the list on the talk page that ''are'' notable. Broad's article clearly meets  and it should be kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTCLEANUP||WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:RS||WP:IS)