Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Osborne Hagger (2nd nomination)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Osborne Hagger (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

The subject of this BLP is a less than obscure retired British civil servant who clearly fails GNG. There is no independent secondary coverage of this person whatsoever. Every Google hit is to a Wikipedia mirror of this article; there are no hits in the Google News Archive for this person; the only hits in Google Books are to Wikipedia mirrors and a directory of UK Civil Servants; there are no hits in Google Scholar.

The sole source cited in the article is a copy of a written statement that he submitted to the 1999 inquiry on BSE (mad cow disease) concerning his recollection of activities in his department period prior to his 1994 retirement. I would think that this is a primary source that could not be used in a BLP per WP:BLPPRIMARY. The gravamen of his statement, if I may be so bold as to summarize it, is that he didn't have much involvement with the issue and just attended a few meetings at which it was discussed. It does not even appear that this written statement was referenced in the report of the inquiry!

The 2005 AFD which resulted in a "keep" does not appear to have been based on any reasoned analysis, as there is no discussion or even recognition that the fundamental requirement of GNG is significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Fladrif (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom - I can't find any coverage other than mirrors. I'm actually tempted to try A7 since I don't really see where claims to notability are made. SmartSE (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried A7 [1] but it was quickly denied on the basis that this article had passed the earllier AFD. This is so clearcut that it really should be handled as a WP:PROD. Fladrif (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PROD would have the same issue, FYI. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But given that the AFD was not a reasoned decision, it really shouldn't preclude A7 or PROD deletion. Regardless, the issue is here now instead. Fladrif (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Fladrif (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - His job was not one that would confer automatic notability. And there are no sources writing about him to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shouldn't have survived the first afd. NN and no refs. Szzuk (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2011 (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.