Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Dargin

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Merely being quoted in the media as an expert fails to meet WP:N, and whatever else. Without in depth coverage, there's nothing to write an article from. Wily D 08:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Dargin

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

Article fails WP:BIO, WP:COI and WP:RESUME. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinarily Weak Delete This article has some blatant POV issues ("world's leading experts"--really?) and seems to read somewhat like a resume. Also, YouTube is not a reliable source and most of the references seem to be mostly scholarly works or self-promotional. On the plus side, this isn't a blatant hoax and I'm sure was written in good faith. At the moment I'd lean delete, but it's close. Go Phightins! (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK and all other assertions of notability. Qworty (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although needs some cleanup and rewriting, WP:COI and WP:RESUME are notvalid reasons for deletion, while WP:BIO is met. It is cited by several mainstream media issues as expert, e.g. USA Today (oil expert Justin Dargin; Dargin, a research fellow at Harvard University), Al Bawaba (Justin Dargin, a Middle East geopolitics and energy expert at Harvard University), AME (Justin Dargin, Research Fellow at the Dubai Initiative and Fulbright scholar of the Middle East), Zawya (Justin Dargin, Research Fellow, The Dubai Initiative/Harvard-Kennedy University, Dubai), The National (Justin Dargin, an expert on Gulf energy politics at the Dubai School of Government), Petroleum Economist (Justin Dargin, a research fellow at the Dubai Initiative of Harvard University in the US.). In addition he has been cited in German Hungarian, Italian etc media. In addition he is an author of several academic books as also has published in peer reviewed scientific journal. In general, the general notability as also the specific notability requirements are met. Beagel (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in USA Today and The National are not substantial as required per WP:BIO. The rest of the sources do not qualify as reliable, as per guidelines. A couple of them are simply press releases posted on blogging or syndication platforms. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 04:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Zawya was really press release, my bad. However, I disagree that Al Bawaba or Petroleum Economist are not reliable sources—they are. And there are more of them. They confirm that this is not self-promotional, but Justin Dargin is called expert and specialist also by reliable third party sources. And as I said, he has published and cited in per reviewed scientific journals. Beagel (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing on very thin grounds here. Do you mean to say that a researcher working at Harvard Law University qualifies under notability guidelines for academicians? The coverage in USA Today, the National, Petroleum Economist are not substantial enough to satisfy the notability guidelines either through WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. Also, I dispute that Al Bawaba (primarily a blog publisher) and the Petroleum Economist are reliable sources. Even if the sources qualified as RS, the subject of the biography is neither the primary subject of discussion on the articles nor does he receive coverage that can be considered substantial. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've removed all the content from the article that was unsourced, sourced to deadlinks or sourced to Wikipedia. I've looked through Newsbank and Google News. He is quoted as an expert in some of these sources, which number less than 20. The other sources are articles written by them. Not one of these sources provides biographical information about him. What is left in the article doesn't indicate he falls under any notability category. On Google Scholar, similar problems as Google News and Newsbank. A look through Trove doesn't indicate notability. If a good case for WP:GNG can be made by adding sources I do not have access to, I'd be willing to seriously re-consider. --LauraHale (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No bias against recreation if it goes through AfC and the new article passes WP:GNG.--LauraHale (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, open to WP:Hey keep. The present article is so promotional it discredits what actually might be usable by Wikipedia standards. There are times when a total redo is called for, this may be one of those occasions. I note he has written some books, has done some impressive things and may be covered in a few reliable sources which pulled together may meet WP:GNG. But that is after a complete rework of the article. Insomesia (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2012 (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.