Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nevile Gardiner

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. ✗plicit 23:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[]

Nevile Gardiner[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article has no sources, and fails WP:N. Further attempts to find sources only gave a website apparently using Wikipedia as its source. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[]

Delete This article is an emblem of the legacy of the wild west conditions under which Wikipedia was built. Although I would argue since we still have not required all articles to go through AfC we have not yet overcome those conditions as much as we would like to think. The article has exist for roughly 18 years, and has been tagged as lacking any sources for roughly 13 years. About half is information connecting him by familial relations to other people who were notable. Even ambassadors are not default notable, but the commercial secretary is almost sure to not be notable, and getting bit by an unidentified insect and dying is not a sign of notability either. I am really shocked how many totally not meeting any inclusion guidelines articles from 2004 there still are. I once avoided participating in discussions on dead people on the view that Wikipedia was too presentist. I still think it is, but that is no reason to keep articles on people from the past that clearly do not even come close to meeting notability. With the popularity of family history research I am in some ways surprised that we do not end up with more articles on non-notable but sourceable deceased people. Although in this case there are no sources presented at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[]

Delete can't find reliable sources for this article. I don't think being bitten by an insect or having a good diplomatic career enough to satisfy notability requirements. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[]

Comment I can find reliable sources but I'm not sure if they're enough for Wikipedia Notability: he got a very brief (22 words) mention on the Obituary page of The Times on the day after his death, there was also an obituary in the Washington Evening Star which is available at https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1954-05-10/ed-1/seq-15/ There's also an entry in The Foreign Office List and Diplomatic and Consular Year Book but the full text doesn't seem to be available and the snippet doesn't reveal much Piecesofuk (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[]

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.