Graeme Codrington : The subject also has previously edited their own page, declaring a COI.  30Four ( talk ) 01:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and South Africa .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am the subject of this article, and as such will not comment on either WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR.  However, I just want to indicate that the reason for some self-editing (which was declared) was because the entry was targeted by a number of different people and edited with malicious and maligning content.  I appealed to editors to assist, with no response.  All of this should be apparent in the page history, and the COI and self-editing should not be taken into account when considering the possible deletion of the entry.  Thanks.  GraemeCod ( talk ) 12:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete can't find WP:SIGCOV .  Also looks like a magnet for WP:BLPVIO .  Park3r ( talk ) 01:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I take the comments by the article subject as a Keep so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I looked hard for sources.   He is discussed at some length here: Coming face to face through narratives: evaluating from our evolutionary history the contemporary risk factors and their conceptualisation within a technologised society [34] but that's not a widely cited paper.  His work quoted/cited at some length here: Move over, baby boomers and millennials - 'founders' will be shaping the future [35] His own papers aren't widely cited (although they are cited).  There are a lot of interviews, a lot of mentions in "the future of x" type articles, and a lot of mentions in keynote addresses and such.  Clearly he gets around.  I just don't see the impact sufficient to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR which I think is the right standard here.  Oblivy ( talk ) 04:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have done some more reading about Wikipedia's criteria for WP:AUTHOR and do not think I qualify.  As disappointed as I am, I concur with the deletion of my entry on this basis.  GraemeCod ( talk ) 20:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment FYI There are two criteria in play here WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG .  Either one could be met to save the article.  Park3r ( talk ) 00:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a fair comment.  There's a seemingly unending dispute over whether GNG can be met if the specific notability guideline (i.e., AUTHOR) isn't met, but the plain wording of WP:N does seem to provide a parallel path to establish notability.  However, in this case I didn't see a lot of sources talking about Mr. Codrington (rather than talking to him or using his words) which would be what I'd want to see.  And, since he's here, I'd like to say I really did look for such sources as I don't think it benefits Wikipedia to to delete pages about people who are "real-world notable" just because they technically fail notability guidelines.  Show me the sources that you think provide substantial coverage about him and I'll reconsider my vote.  Oblivy ( talk ) 01:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’ve already voted delete, and stand by my vote, however I wanted to make it clear to Mr Codrington that GNG could also apply, if sources can be denonstrate he meets it.  Park3r ( talk ) 14:24, 5 October 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete