Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Story

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. The policy-based arguments for deletion, combined with the source analysis in line with the requirements for GNG which was never refuted, means the consensus exists in this discussion to delete. Daniel (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Story[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)

Non-notable "alternative analysis" writer. All of the sources mention the subject in passing at best, except for an interview with a far-right magazine. Only claim to fame was editing a book by Anatoliy Golitsyn. Google search brought up nothing further, considering this guy is alleged to have been an economic adviser to Margaret Thatcher. Jdcooper (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Has multiple references and sources that show this. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- CAVETOWNFAN: Which ones? The only ones that are not trivial mentions are from unreliable sources. Which fails WP:GNG. Jdcooper (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Specifically, of 12 sources listed in this article, only 5, 9, 10, and 12 even mention the subject. 5 is a trivial mention, 12 is self-published, and 9 and 10 are from an unreliable source. Jdcooper (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As I agree with editor above who wants this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Davidgoodheart, do you have any reasons? This is a discussion, not a poll (see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, WP:!VOTE). Jdcooper (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Jdcooper (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is nothing to see in the references except for two long newspaper interviews. Another conspiracy theory about Edward Heath? The subject pedals consipiracy, and the article does not meet GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTINHERITED. I see a wall of citations, but on closer inspection, they're not about him, directly. We do not publish articles on every person involved with spy games and conspiracy theories. I would not oppose a redirect to a relevant target. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2021 (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.