Talk:John Peet (1954-)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] Proposal to delete article

(Moved this text from article. -- Petri Krohn 02:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC))

The article is unencyclopedic, it refers to a little known living individual; John Peet is not a notable subject of historic or encyclopedia interest. If the purpose of Wikipedia is to become a comprehensive current British biography guide or to compile references to millions of living journalists and would-be journalists in the world today, then that would be a different. As far as I (and the general public) know this is not the case, as the Wikipedia is nominally an encyclopedia, not a current British biography reference or showcase for living personalities.

The (stub) article is not encyclopedic. It describes an irrelevant, not merely not notable, subject (there are thousands of successful journalists writing in 100s of languages), of no importnace to the majority of people in the world, the term "highly successful journalist" - is not a criterion for encyclopedia enclusion. "Charismatic and creative" are the adjectives Mr. Peet might wish to put on his resume but these are hardly the terms with which one would impartially describe an encyclopedic subject in reference to a living human employed by a political /ideologically-motivated/ news publication.

-- Roobit 01:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the general public might have something else to say. Claims that subject is "irrelevant" (not simply not-notable) seems to imply this editor has a bone to pick with Peet. TheQuandry 04:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The attitude taken in the first comment is totally slanted- Mr Peet is one of the most experienced and important writers for the Economist magazine, whose highly sought-after writers deserve entries to Wikipedia, purely on the grounds that the competition and prestige of the paper is of such a high level. I remind you that the Economist is Britain's largest selling 'serious' publication, selling well over 1.25 million copies every week.

87.80.64.161 17:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is relevant in WP. I did however remove some vanity statements and obsolete links. -Chincoteague (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)