Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Tegfan Davies


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 10:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

David Tegfan Davies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am sure he was a very nice person, but having been a minister for 50 years does not by itself qualify a person as notable. The only reference provided is to a directory/ dictionary (?) entry that reads like it is likely an obituary. A google search for more sources turns up 19 results, most of which mention him as a "long-serving minister of Ammanford's Christian Temple", but say little or nothing more about him. Am not seeing enough here to substantiate a notability claim. KDS4444 (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: Dictionary entry means he passes WP:ANYBIO, and this 2012 article indicates his enduring historical significance. In any case, WP:GNG is passed right there. Plus there's an OBE thrown in for good measure. StAnselm (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree, doesn't an entry in a national anthology of biography satisfy ANYBIO? Smmurphy(Talk) 22:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Response An entry in a national anthology indicates a likelihood of notability— no single criterion mentioned in WP:ANYBIO or anywhere else is by itself meant to be a free pass: we need to look at the overall picture, and to me, it is still inadequate here. The article in the South Wales Guardian may be fine for corroborating the subject's notability once that has been established by genuine national sources, but because of its local nature, it can't be used to substantiate that notability claim itself (never mind that its content as cited here is mostly a reprint of the Guardian's own obituary on the man from 1968, as stated in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography, whose content derives from the same article, and that only the entry in the Dictionary has apparently had a named author).  The Dictionary of Welsh Biography Down to 1940 contains over 4,300 entries, making it appear to be an indiscriminate collection of information.  Also the Dictionary of National Biography appears to be a comprehensive British publication, whereas the Welsh version is much more local— the Wikipedia article on the former doesn't even mention the latter as one of its sources.  I get the impression (though I am unfamiliar with the facts here) that there was a British version that presumed to cover all "British" notables, and then some local British groups such as the Welsh who found this unsatisfactory produced their own local versions of the same book in which they included only local ethnic notables (i.e., the Welsh).  In any case, the content of all of the extant materials on this person appear to come from the same OBITUARY publication in the South Guardian in 1968, and such sources are usually considered WP:ROUTINE news coverage and inadequate for establishing actual notability.  KDS4444 (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of ANYBIO, ROUTINE, MEMORIAL, and RS doesn't seem to match yours. Myself, I don't see anything in ROUTINE or MEMORIAL that says that obituaries, especially non-paid ones, should not be used to establish notability. As for ANYBIO, I think that satisfying that or any subject-specific notability guideline indicates, as you say, likihood of satisfying GNG. To me, that indicates that a more extensive search should be made before concluding a subject is not-notable. In this case, that would mean having access to Welsh sources and, depending on the source, the ability to interpret them and their reliability. Since you didn't explain how you addressed this issue, I wanted to point out that ANYBIO may be satisfied, and I was curious what you did to be sure that GNG wasn't met. A google search seems a bit brief given such an indication of a likelihood of notability. As for RS, I don't think there is anything in the notability guidelines or subject-specific guidelines that precludes using a local source to establish notability, assuming that local source is reliable. And there is nothing in RS that precludes local sources. And it seems to me that the South Wales Guardian is a reliable source, especially for issues pertaining to Ammanford. In any case, I'm sorry I wasn't more clear in my !vote. Your reply does make me feel that your nomination is more plausible than I felt when reading your initial nomination. In any case, I still !vote keep. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Smmurphy, A local newspaper is presumed ot be a reliable source, but while it does contribute to meeting notability standards, any topic that can only be sourced to local newspapers is highly unlikely to pass notability standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that if a subject can only be sourced to local newspapers, current practice is highly predisposed against the topic, but that the guidelines and policies do not forbid an article on that subject. I think predisposal against locally sourced subjects at AfD sometimes overreaches, especially because the concept of local changes over time and, in my opinion, has drastically changed recently (I think today there is more national coverage in online news sources of what might once have been local stories). Smmurphy(Talk) 16:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's right. In this case, the Cardiff-based Western Mail (Wales) is regional/local, but the National Library of Wales is a gold-standard source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Although he has an entry in the dictionary, I still fail to see what makes him more notable than any other minister. We do not list people on the basis of simply having an OBE, or any other common award. Further, as all the information seems to have been traced back to a single source, it does not have multiple reliable secondary sources. --Killer Moff (talk) 10:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not true at all. The biography lists other sources: Blwyddiadur yr Annibynwyr Cymraeg, Lleisiau ddoe a heddiw, etc. StAnselm (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Killer Moff has obviously not read the sources. He conspiculouly has not read the article from the South Wales Guardian linked by St. Anselm above. And certainly does not understand the sourcing and standards used in entries in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography Down to 1940.   User:Smmurphy's argument is valid, and sort of makes the rest of the sources mere icing on the cake.  But I do wish editors would - at a minimum - look at sources already present before iVoting and before bringing articles to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I'm at work and don't have access to a lot of the sources owing to firewalls. I was taking KDS4444 at their word. However, my point still stands that I don't see anything in the article that suggests a specific notability!. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Killer Moff Can you please encounter WP:ANYBIO "3. The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." Since subject is listed in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography - National Library of Wales.  In addition to other sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I assure you, I have read that, including the section where it says that merely meeting these criteria is not a guarantee of notability. I'm not denying that he has a bio. I'm asking what he's done that makes him notable. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Found some substantive discussion of his career in old newspaper articles, added some of it to article. There is enough notability here to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to withdraw my nomination in light of having confirmed his receipt of an Order of the British Empire in 1965 (have added ref to same to article). Between this AND his appearance in the aforementioned Dictionary, I believe we now have a case for notability, however thin.  Given that there has been at least one detete vote, this discussion must now run its course, but with the OBE, I am pretty certain we are going to end up with a keep outcome at this point.  Would have been nice if the original author of the piece had included info like this from the beginning— it is mentioned in his obituaries, though it doesn't turn up with any prominence in Google searches.  KDS4444 (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I should point out that it was mentioned (but not cited) in the version of the article you nominated for deletion. StAnselm (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was also given there as "the O.B.E.", unlinked, as if I should have known what it meant. Which is more than a little presumptuous, no?  Instead, I replaced it with a link to the actual award, and found a viable citation.  You are welcome!  KDS4444 (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, yes - I suspect just about everyone in the UK would know what an OBE is. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, you Brits! (also, no one in the US would guess what the abbreviation OBE means... We might choose "Overcome by events"!  KDS4444 (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC))


 * Comment: Reopened this as I overlooked the delete vote disqualifying a withdrawal. --  Dane talk  21:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep = an OBE and National bio listing. Not snowing, but the rain is freezing. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2017 (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.