Talk:David Burchell
| 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of David Burchell be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Untitled
editThe subject is a regular columinist for The Australian. His columns are read by millions of Australians. For that reason he is notable. Apollo1986 13 June 2010 8.38pm Australian time.
"with weekday sales of 135,000 and Saturday sales of 305,000" The Australian is probably not getting him millions of readers. Still notable, but not very much so.Schoenheit von Vogelsang (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Last paragraph
editNone of the references provided justify, or in any way address, the statement: "His columns for The Australian are poetic and have a philosophical tone." I am, in fact, unclear what a "philosophical tone" is. The rest of the statements in the paragraph, to the extent that they are supported by the references at all, are original research. I am willing to grant that my previous edit is no more justified by the links provided, though it is closer to being in neutral language. Therefore, unless someone cares to provide any good reason to the contrary, I'm going to delete the whole thing, since it's not justified by the given evidence, and is otherwise just praise devoid of objectively verifiable, factual material.Schoenheit von Vogelsang (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)