Rob Gerrand: Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG .  Also possible WP:AUTOB .  - UtherSRG (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Australia .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Recommend KEEP : Substantial changes and additions have now been made to this page which add many non-writing biographical details for the subject.  I believe that these improvements would indicate that the subject is "notable", possibly not to the requirements for an author but certainly for the other management career work.  Perry Middlemiss ( talk ) 02:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Recommend Closure of Discussion : this discussion has now been running for two weeks, has been relisted after the first week and still I am the only editor who has responded to the call.  I can only assume that this implies a lack of dissent and I therefore request that this discussion be brought to an end.  Perry Middlemiss ( talk ) 00:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Consensus is not made by lack of participation, and I don't think we can take low participation to mean that nobody objects, particularly given how limited editor resources at AfD already are.  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 18:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment (to potential closer/relister): I'm currently assessing this.  May take a minute or two.  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 20:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There's a source assessment table below for the sources currently in the article - I did not find any better ones.  Fails WP:BASIC , and no evidence that WP:NAUTHOR is met either.  Improving an article does not make the subject more notable, as has been suggested in this discussion.  I'm also not sure why "other management career work" would make this individual notable.  If I've missed something, please let me know.  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 20:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I take it that the "X" here in the table below indicates a negative?   I'm not sure how you can rate Austlit as neither independent (it is a long running Australian bibliographic project running out of the University of Queensland) nor reliable, as this is the premier Australian literary resource in the country.  I'd like some explanation of that if possible.  Similarly with the ISBNs and the Florey Institute annual report which are rated as non-independent.  The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, which has its own wiki page, is one of the premier health research facilities in the country.  Perry Middlemiss ( talk ) 02:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To establish notability, sources need to be independent of the subject.  Books the subject has written don‘t fulfill that requirement, and neither do companies or institutes where Gerrand is a member of the board.  Note that even if AustLit is reliable and independent, it provides no significant coverage of Gerrand.  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 06:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I grant you that Austlit does not provide significant coverage as it's a bibliographic index, a listing.  The trouble is you rate it as "not independent" and "not reliable" which is clearly incorrect.  That brings into question your other ratings which will influence anyone reading your Assessment Table.  Similarly for the listing of books.  They are referenced to indicate that they are not just made up but do, in fact, exist.  On other pages I've had other editors indicate that such listings must be referenced.  But again they are not meant to.  I have linked to the Florey Institute's annual report as it indicates that Gerrand held the position of director.  It's made as a statement of fact in that document.  It's also made as a statement of fact in other referenced documents from other organisations.  I just thought it was better to reference a directorial position directly from the relevant organisation rather than from one of the others.  Is it preferable for me to reference his Florey Institute work from the Healthy Parks Healthy People Global reference, and vice versa?  That seems very confusing to me.  My main concern is that your Assessment Table contains so many queries about, and negative assessments of, independent and reliable organisations that a casual glance from another editor would immediately conclude that there was no possible argument against deletion.  Perry Middlemiss ( talk ) 07:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  https://www.sfbookcase.com/author.asp? author=Rob+Gerrand ?  ✘ No https://nwmphn.org.au/news/north-western-melbourne-primary-health-network-board-update/ ✘ No https://florey.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/The_Florey_-_Annual_Report_2013.pdf ?  ✘ No https://www.sane.org/about-sane/board-members-and-patrons ?  ✘ No https://web.archive.org/web/20081211113621/http://www.philsp.com/homeville/ISFAC/t165.htm#A3428 ?  ✘ No ISBN 9781863950008.  ?  ✘ No ISBN 9780143001355.  ?  ✘ No ISBN 9780670041381 ?  ✘ No ISBN 9781863953016 ?  ✘ No AustLit (all of them) ?  ?  ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  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