Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Johannessen

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. Daniel (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Johannessen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This was nominated for speedy deletion by an anon for being a vanity article and reasonably removed as not meeting the criteria. However, the anon had a point - the person is spuriously notable, the article is terribly sourced (including any of the claims to notability), and the writing is more promotional than anything I've seen on Wikipedia in a long time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, all I could find were passing mentions, with the exception of one article in the Canberra City News, which rather ironically makes reference to the promotionalism of his Wikipedia page. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with above, could only find passing non-notable references. Section 6 is a blatant ad for his legal firm. Teraplane (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have made significant edits to the page in an attempt to meet WP:GNG including substantial removal of inappropriate content and the addition of several new sources (some of which are online and some of which are via the Newsbank database of Australian newspapers (broader and deeper than Google) and require access to the (or a) database to read in full). Nonetheless I don't think this passes GNG but worth the community re-assessing. Cabrils (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2021 (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.