Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ralph (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. A Train^talk 07:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Ralph[edit]

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

Despite what superficially looks like a lot of sources, none of them are actually sufficient for WP:GNG - they are all either not independent or not significant, as detailed more fully in the previous AfD (which was no consensus). In the interests of full disclosure I will link the two more recent links I have found: this from "ABC Open", which is clearly not part of the ABC's editorial news coverage, and this which mentions that he was commemorated in parliament, which is nice but not unusual for local, non-notable community leaders. Frickeg (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both the article and the references read like eulogies, which isn't disqualifying by itself, but here they are indicative that most of the sources lack Independence of the subject. No significant coverage in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Waiting for more participation to analyze depth of sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Seems to fail POL and AUTHOR. Sources do not establish GNG, and a BEFORE does not find much more. He might pass with a bit mpre high quality sources, but not at current level.Icewhiz (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2017 (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.