Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Galsworthy


 * 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 no consensus. Leaning keep. (non-admin closure) &#x222F; WBG converse 10:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Mike Galsworthy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:COATRACK and WP:N. This article is ostensibly about the individual in question, but spends more time discussing his organisations, none of which are notable enough to have an article. RaviC (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To evaluate new sources.
 * Keep I created this article and I did not receive any notification that it had been made the subject to an AfD. My reasons for regarding Galsworthy as notable comes from his being a media commentator on Brexit. That inevitably (and I would have thought obviously) means that the two organisations which he co-founded "Scientists for EU" and "Healthier IN the EU" feature largely in his biography and are therefore not WP:UNDUE. It's like suggesting that Theresa May's bio seems to have a lot about the Conservative Party (UK) in it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised at your response to the AfD. You specifically asked me (and other editors) to take this article to AfD as we had concerns with it.
 * With regards to your analogy, the Conservative Party is a notable political organisation with its own extensive article on Wikipedia. Both of this editor's organisations have no notability or articles on Wikipedia. Plenty of people have commented online about Brexit. That's not a qualifier for a Wikipedia article. --RaviC (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You specifically asked me (and other editors) to take this article to AfD as we had concerns with it.
 * As of 16 July you had not taken it to AfD or discussed it at the thread by pinging me at Talk:Mike Galsworthy and there appeared to be no takers.
 * You added a WP:PROD notice on 22 July without notifying me - a direct breach of WP:PRODNOM policy: Inform the page creator or other significant contributors with a message at their talk page(s) informing them of the proposed deletion, except for contributors are no longer regarded as active editors on Wikipedia., and the first sentence of PROD states Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. On what basis did you decide that adding a PROD template to this article would be "uncontroversial"? If User:Aspects hadn't removed it then the article would have been deleted under PROD without me knowing about it. You waited until the 22nd in the hope I wouldn't notice.
 * Then on 23 July you nominated it for deletion again without telling me on the basis that nearly a week earlier I had said "take it to AfD" if you disagree, again you hoped I wouldn't notice.
 * Mike Galsworthy's notability comes from his work as a media commentator on Brexit he has had articles about that topic published in the The Lancet, The Independent and New Scientist. The organisations he co-founded are part of that work. He is not deriving his notability from them, having said that the Financial Times notes that Scientists for the EU has more than 173,000 Facebook followers. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Galsworthy is notable for pro-EU advocacy. Co-founding and running Scientists for EU and Healthier IN is only part of this. He has gained wide media coverage as a commentator on Brexit. In addition to the sources mentioned above he has written for the Guardian. He also does poetry slams and open mike events but I don't think they have received MSM coverage. His academic work alone would not qualify him as notable. Disclosure: I know Galsworthy personally. We studied in the same department at KCL. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete clear failure of WP:GNG. The person is known for his commentaries about Brexit and having his opinion published as opinion pieces but this is not enough for confirming the WP:NOTABILITY. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG being a commentator on Brexit, and writing for The Guardian is not notable in itself, unless this has been independently documented in-depth, incidentally, 13 of the current sources are to his own work. Theroadislong (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Some of these were moved from the bibliography section in the last 24 hours. I have now restored them, so its 8 out of 17 refs. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see a single indication of notability in terms of specific coverage that would leave us without any doubt with regards to notability per WP:GNG. There are a number of similar critics and due to the present political atmosphere, many of them are receiving some coverage but still that's not enough for separate article. Excelse (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have added references quoting Galsworthy, otherwise documenting his political activity, from the website of the UK Parliament, where Galsworthy presented evidence to the House of Lords, and press reports from the BBC, The Atlantic, The BMJ, UK Science Council, Times Higher Education, MIT Technology Review, Buzzfeed, Harvard political review, Nature Index, The Scientist, and others. Please review these sources to assess whether they fulfil the requirements of being reliable, independent, secondary sources. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Of particular note is an in-depth personal profile in the Austrian daily newspaper Der Standard. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging, , and  for update on their views following the additions, particularly the profile in Austrian broadsheet Der Standard. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And how we will know that it is any effective than New European? Not that I am disputing the reliability but why only New European is the first or only source that seems to be making him notable out of all available sources? Kraose (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I know what you mean, do you mean that for you only the New European source is notable? I don't agree, there's Harvard and MIT plus others and if you want another profile piece then there's the Der Standard article. I think it is worth mentioning that both Scientists for EU and Healthier IN the EU redirect as Mike Galsworthy. Anyone who wants People's Vote to go away want Scientists for EU, Healthier IN the EU and Galsworthy to all disappear. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with Der Standard, having read some of their articles in the past. The article you're citing is six months old.  For a media commentator concerned with a topic of fast change, you would expect that he would have received far more extensive coverage than than an old article written in German. Furthermore, Der Standard has an English language section/edition.  If the subject of this article was particularly noteworthy, you would expect that they would have at least translated it to the language of the concerned country. --RaviC (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you meant to start with why you didn't notify about the PROD. Anyway... Six months = old? Hardly, or most of Wikipedia would be deleted over night, topic of fast change or not. The piece is about Galsworthy's visit to the Vienna Science Ball ("Wien" at the start of the article means "Vienna"), the "concerned country" is Austria the article 'only' made the Austrian version and the German version of the website. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * RaviC: This seems a strange line of reasoning. Can you please reference a Wikipedia policy that says that sources over six months old should be treated any differently than newer sources? In addition, it seems clear to me that if a commentator is known internationally that an is an indication of greater renown than commentators who are not internationally recognized. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just added the following Hansard ref:
 * Video.
 * --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please also note this newspaper article that talks about the concerns of scientists that have contacted Galsworthy personally with concerns about Brexit and includes several quotes. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &#x222F; WBG converse 10:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. MG definitely doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR, so we need to consider just WP:GNG, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There are lots of sources in the MG article; they can be split into four groups: 1) things written by MG; 2) things written by his employer/organisation; 3) things that contain some MG quotations and/or a brief statement about his employer/organisation; 4) more detailed accounts of him/his organisation. Per GNG ("'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it"), 1 and 2 are not independent, so cannot be used to establish notability. Those that are in group 3 mostly do not "address [...] the topic directly and in detail" (GNG again) – they just report some brief comments he made/state what organisations he founded/state where he currently or used to work. That leaves group 4, which in my view contains only the recently added online Austrian newspaper piece, which gives more detail about MG's opinions (although it doesn't include anything extra about him as a person rather than his views). I first raised the matter of his notability three weeks ago and almost no sources have been found that can contribute to meeting the most fundamental notability criterion that we have: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so I opt for 'delete'. EddieHugh (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources written by MG appear in The Lancet, The Guardian, The Independent, New Scientist so are far more reputable than, say, blogs
 * There are a couple of refs to confirm MG is a employee of / part of organisation X - nothing excessive
 * I don't think the Times Higher Education article NUS and UUK join EU ‘in’ campaign, the Harvard article A Departure from Truth or the Nature article Brexit uncertainty disrupting EU-UK research as things that contain some MG quotations and/or a brief statement about his employer/organisation. They are interviews for quality institutions and publications.
 * I think we regard the Der Standard article differently, which I concede contains nothing vapid about the subject.
 * --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And you think that is significant enough? Der Standard is good but a similar article for English readers could be an advantage in this situation.Excelse (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This article in the Atlantic describes Galsworthy personally, rather than merely as a representative of an organization:
 * “There’s no point in vilifying Bregretters,” Mike Galsworthy, a scientist who founded the prominent anti-Brexit groups Scientists for EU and Healthier in the EU, told me.
 * Unlike hardline Remainers, Galsworthy was somewhat relieved when May, in her Florence speech, “at least removed her previous threats to undercut the UK’s neighbors and explained the motivations behind the Brexit vote to an external audience that just thinks we’re nuts.”
 * There is also a personal profile published in the American Psychological Society Observer magazine which has lots of personal history, e.g.
 * Galsworthy was apparently an adventurer by nature ... By the time he’d entered Cambridge, he’d already seen much of the world, including several years of school in Saudi Arabia and the U.S., plus a year working and traveling in South America.
 * T0mpr1c3 (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it is worth re-iterating that Galsworthy is not just any old blogger on the internet. His pieces have been published in The Lancet (three times!), which is the highest impact medical journal in the UK and the second highest in the world, and Science, which has the highest circulation of any science journal anywhere. You need some significant credibility to do that. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this AfD ought to be read in conjunction with WP:Articles for deletion/European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom) and WP:Articles for deletion/Britain for Europe. There is an element of WP:FOLLOWING leading to quasi-WP:CANVASSING going on with regards articles about groups / individuals that express anti-Brexit sentiment. I don't think it's co-ordinated but then it do esn't need to be. The lack of notification about AfDs that is creeping in is particularly problematic. WP:NOTCENSORED. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have cited another fairly detailed profile. In addition to all the other references, there are now at least 3 substantial pieces that feature Galsworthy as the subject, in unimpeachable sources:
 * Der Standard (entire article)
 * APS Observer (entire article)
 * Nature (6 paragraphs)
 * I am confident that these should be sufficient to establish notability, but if required I can do more digging. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Galsworthy is also interviewed in two documentary films. There are numerous TV interviews. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG - an article in a German language publication is not sufficient. His sole claim to fame is that he has created some SIPGs and unsurprisingly speaks for them Lyndaship (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * SIPGs? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Special interest pressure groups, I imagine. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment above. It is selling Galsworthy significantly short to describe him as if he was just another media hack. Most media hacks do not get to promulgate their viewpoints in the world's top peer-reviewed science journals. And besides, what about the APS Observer piece, which is *only* about Galsworthy and nobody else, and the Nature profile, which is a set of personal profiles about scientists and the impact Brexit will have on them? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The media ssection now includes:
 * --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's standard for journalists, talking heads, etc, to not be considered notable by default at AFD if coverage about them is limited. Perhaps regular columnists/hosts/panelists for major news/current affairs sources should be considered sufficiently notable even with limited RS coverage (extension of WP:NJOURNALIST meets WP:ANYBIO#2), but that doesn't appear to apply here (?). Regardless of AFD outcomes, suggest that each of the component groups at People's Vote be given a ~1 para capsule outlining their formation and key positions/aims and redirects to these be made if they don't meet WP:NORG for independent articles. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - As noted, does not satisfy general notability as written. Also appears to be primarily a statement of his views and those of his organization rather than a neutral encyclopedic article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep whilst the article definitely needs a lot of the information either removed or changed so that it doesn't just read as an advertisement for him or some huge biography full of trivia, he clearly has notability and the article is well sourced. I agree with some of the sentiment from those who wish to delete the article; it currently doesn't feel like a completely normal encyclopaedic article and needs some improvement, however this can quite clearly be changed. Greenleader (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Arguably the most powerful figure on the anti-Brexit scene is Scientists for EU founder Dr Mike Galsworthy. cgrosvenor (talk) 19:27, 06 Aug 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not one of the criteria mentioned at WP:GNG! We use policy- and guideline-based arguments. EddieHugh (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Policies and guidelines are just that, but you ignore the fact that there is a great deal of information and many citations about the subject's work and references to it in the article itself as it stands now. -- Evertype·✆ 12:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep He's a notable personality in science here in the UK. He has some profile in national media too, see for example I agree with comments suggesting removal of some information that's less relevant and not written in a neutral style. I should add that his evidence to House of Lords Select Committee (cited above) is also very important. rclb2 (talk) — rclb2 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I see that this was your first contribution to Wikipedia. We're mainly discussing whether MG meets the criteria given at WP:GNG. The things that you mention don't meet the criteria listed there. EddieHugh (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The basis for this AfD is RaviC's assertion that that this article is about organizations rather than the individual. While the organizations are notable in themselves, Mr Galsworthy is notable for his activism within them—and that is what those sections of the article discuss: not the organizations, but his work within them. A good many citations now have been given, indeed showing that his activism with regard to the EU membership question goes back to 2013. Citations for his work as a scientist have also been given. The citations given above by T0mpr1c3 are good, and the "rebuttal" given by Lyndaship (who is interested in things nautical) is really nothing but gainsaying, criticizing a German source and ignoring Nature and APS Observer. Once again: The basis for this AfD is RaviC's unsupported assertion (1) that the organizations are not notable (which they are) and that article is about them and not Galsworthy (though it is clearly about him). This AfD fails to make its case. Keep and close the AfD. -- Evertype·✆ 12:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware having a primary interest in ships disqualified an editor from voicing an opinion on other articles at AfD. Could you explain as an editor who has made 50 edits in the last year primarily on linguistic topics what made you come straight to this AfD about an obscure activist today? Lyndaship (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Being interested in ships doesn't disqualify you, but your argment was I described it: you attempt to trivialize a credible German source and in doing so ignore the two other credible sources right next to it. Since you ask, I contribute less to Wikipedia than I used to because of the persistent bias against people who have actual expertise. Also lately much of my focus outside of the encyclopaedia has been related to current affairs in Ireland, Scotland, the UK, and the US, and it is from that focus that I know Mr Galsworthy's work, and it is from there that I learned of this AfD. I am no stranger to biased AfDs. Your assertion that he is "an obscure activist" is no more than an assertion, and the content of the article with its many references shows, in fact, that he is "a prominent activist". This is no vanity page, and I will wonder out loud whether some of the Delete votes here have to do with a distaste some editors for the political stance Mr Galsworthy takes. Both of the points raised by the OP here (that the organizations are non-notable, and that the article is about the organizations, not about the person) have little merit. -- Evertype·✆ 15:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * CANVASSING You are invited to look at https://www.facebook.com/michaeljgalsworthy Lyndaship (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For those who can't access it, MG posted this on his facebook page: 'Argh - there's quite an extensive Wikipedia page on me... but now it looks like some prats have marked it as an "Article for Deletion". Anyone with Wikipedia know-how out there (I haz none!) that can advise?' Several supporters replied there, stating that they have or will turn up here (even creating an account, if needed). This undermines the whole process, unfortunately. (And one or two have effectively outed themselves too: for you, take remedial action soon if you don't want people to know your facebook/real life identity!) EddieHugh (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Listen, you two. Enough is enough. Maybe neither of you have Wikipedia articles about you. When there is one, it is gratifying. That's not vanity, it's normal. It's nice when one's accomplishments are noticed. When suddenly the article is up for deletion with spurious arguments it is naturally dismaying. And it is natural for a person to reach out to his or her peers to talk about it. The suggestion you make is that Galworthy considers this a vanity page and acusing him of canvassing is somehow underhanded. Lots of people don't edit the Wikipedia and know about its dark ways. They don't know about all the guidelines which are treated by some editors as laws. The article about me on the Wikipedia was AfD'd several times, and in vicious and disgusting ways. It is an awful experience. When I saw his post on Facebook, I did say "Been there. I'll have a look." That's because I've edited here for fourteen years, and I know how bad an AfD can be. Well I've come here, and what I see is a witch-hunt. On the Keep side we have plenty of people showing a range of public citations by and about Galworthy, both as a scientist and as an activist (political action for the benefit of science). The Delete arguments are poor; they ignore or attempt to minimize the value of those citations. Either much of that is "I never heard of him so he must not be notable" or it's the comments of people who oppose Galworthy's political standpoint. Trying to discredit him for "canvassing" in the sense that you have done so is Wikilawyering of a person who isn't a Wikipedia editor. Give over. The Delete side has not made its case. -- Evertype·✆ 21:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You made me re-read the rationales given. No one has argued that "I never heard of him so he must not be notable". Your assertion that others are "the comments of people who oppose Galworthy's political standpoint" is unfortunate in that it is entirely unsubstantiated. Lyndaship highlighted an issue that led to another editor placing an important template on the page; I spelled out what the issue was and highlighted a risk (inadvertent self-outing) that new editors should be aware of. Your AfD experience is also unfortunate, but carrying it across to this one is not justified. EddieHugh (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are the impressions I have. I note that you have been quite active recently editing articles about pro-EU topics like here so do let's be careful and open about any biases we may have. I don't accuse you or Lyndaship of anything, but it is I think bizarre that she should have been hunting onto his Facebook page and putting that request for help/understanding as something malicious. At the end of the day I don't think any credible case has been made that Galsworthy is not a notable public figure actively involved in a leadership role with regard to this topic. And there are plenty of serviceable citations on the page now that support that. -- Evertype·✆ 22:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, if you have evidence, please present it on my talk page. (If you do, it'll be placed after the thanks I got from someone strongly on the 'keep' side here for the series of edits that included the one you picked out.) "do let's be careful": I agree with you there! (And I try....) EddieHugh (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You made me re-read the rationales given. No one has argued that "I never heard of him so he must not be notable". Your assertion that others are "the comments of people who oppose Galworthy's political standpoint" is unfortunate in that it is entirely unsubstantiated. Lyndaship highlighted an issue that led to another editor placing an important template on the page; I spelled out what the issue was and highlighted a risk (inadvertent self-outing) that new editors should be aware of. Your AfD experience is also unfortunate, but carrying it across to this one is not justified. EddieHugh (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are the impressions I have. I note that you have been quite active recently editing articles about pro-EU topics like here so do let's be careful and open about any biases we may have. I don't accuse you or Lyndaship of anything, but it is I think bizarre that she should have been hunting onto his Facebook page and putting that request for help/understanding as something malicious. At the end of the day I don't think any credible case has been made that Galsworthy is not a notable public figure actively involved in a leadership role with regard to this topic. And there are plenty of serviceable citations on the page now that support that. -- Evertype·✆ 22:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, if you have evidence, please present it on my talk page. (If you do, it'll be placed after the thanks I got from someone strongly on the 'keep' side here for the series of edits that included the one you picked out.) "do let's be careful": I agree with you there! (And I try....) EddieHugh (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Plenty of sourcing that suggests his notability per GNG. However, the article as it stands now (well, a bit less now) is way too much a puff piece relying on associated and primary sourcing. Someone needs to go through with a red pen. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This article seems fairly thoroughly well sourced. I agree with User:DrMies that this article may be overly laden with promotional seeming language, but the subject himself appears to meet the WP:N standards for notability. Galsworthy is quoted fairly extensively throughout prominent sourcing for his commentary on various political issues (some of which I agree should be covered with a more neutral tone). I don't at all agree with the suggestion at the top of this page that Galsworthy's notability is solely derived from his organizations. Alicb (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * delete No real evidence of any notability outside his won fan club.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A fan club that apparently includes the editors of The Lancet, Science, Nature, Der Standard, APS Observer, The Guardian, The Independent, BBC News... T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability is established by having people write about you, not you writing. Nor do one paragraph mentions, it has to be in depth (in other words about him). All the RS I can check all look like one or the other, Trivial mentions or work he has written.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Article should be trimmed rather than added to. seems intent to primp and preen for someone who could be construed as his colleague. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Just barely enough coverage to pass GNG, not a notable academic in his own field.
 * Have you read the bit at the top about assuming good faith? I described my relationship with Galsworthy further back on the page. We were students in the same department 15 years ago, and I haven't seen him since. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs cleanup, I'd say, but passes the GNG. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Passes GNG marginally. Need to trim out the coatracking of organizations.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable for his political activities. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - I approached this somewhat methodically, and ignored the canvassing in favor of policy arguments. I first reviewed the sources. I excluded any sources written by Mr. Galsworthy, since they are primary sources and are all opinion pieces about Brexit. I don't see that a case is being made that notability is based on his meeting WP:NWRITER. I also excluded his academic papers as sources, since we're also not basing notability on scientific achievements, per WP:NSCIENTIST. Those sources seemed to be a roundabout way of substantiating his academic career.  I then looked up his organizations to see if they were notable; what I'm finding is that by Wikipedia guidelines, they are not - there's no sign that any of the groups meet WP:GNG. Compounding this is the lack of in-depth coverage of Mr. Galsworthy himself, coverage we'd expect to see with a notable person's article.  I hope others will confirm the absence of material on his early life and education. What we're left with is essentially a case of WP:BLP1E - with the 1E being his vocal opposition to Brexit. That's not enough in my experience to demonstrate notability. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  22:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You regard his vocal opposition to Brexit as one event? He's been arguing for reform of EU funding years earlier. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just don’t see the sourcing to support notability. Being part of a protest movement is great, but where’s the in-depth coverage? TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  02:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @User:timtempleton I think I can help you here: if you are looking for "material on his early life and education", try the APS Observer article. Anything else you are having trouble finding? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Even though the subject of the article attempted canvassing (though, I'll WP:AGF there, as they said they are not familiar with Wiki rules), they still meet WP:GNG as a political activist with several independent sources talking about him or organisations that he leads. <b style="font-family:courier;box-shadow:2px 1px 4px #888;border:1px solid #999;padding:0 6px;background:linear-gradient(#fff,#ddd);color:#276;border-radius:6px">byteflush</b> <sub style="margin:0 2px">Talk 01:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)