Talk:John Peet (born 1954)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Journalism

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Proposal to delete article

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Move

{{help}} Hi, I am not able to move articles yet, can someone move this to a proper naming convention? Thank you. Kindzmarauli (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is proper. There are two John Peets who are journalists. —fetch ·comms 00:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok nevermind then. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Peet (born 1954). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]