Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Brearey


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Peter Brearey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite the article existing since 2005, it is unsourced and fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE did not find any reliable coverage for WP:GNG so that's why I have nominated the page. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete It is high time that Wikipedia was rid of unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Some. But other old, unsourced articles simply need sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this can be improved with sources. Dannyno (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for going through the effort to find citations, but both of which you added to the article seem to be obituarys or opinion pieces plus are both offline, so they are not the best for WP:RS. If in-depth, third-party, online citations can be found I will gladly withdraw the nomination. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to note that offline sources are not in fact considered problematic by Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offline_sources Dannyno (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not the main issue, although the fact that the majority of references are offline is a bit difficult to cross-check. The bigger problem is where the sources are coming from. At the time of this edit, the last 4 sources all seem to be obituarys based on their title and publication dates. Sources 1 and 3 appear to be dictionaries, which per WP:DICTIONARIES should be cited with care. More so 3 of the sources come from newspapers that the subject worked for. All of these sources can be classified as WP:PRIMARY, which aren't bad as a whole and are actually good for backing up uncontroversial and basic facts, but are bad on their own at establishing notability. This leaves the Guardian article as the only second-party reference, in which only an opinion piece of Brearey is mentioned. Once again thank you for putting in the effort in gathering these references, but I am still not seeing enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that sources were added to the article after it was nominated for deletion.
 * Keep, I agree,can improve with a few sources Alex-h (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - at any rate let's see what we end up with some sources.  If still not judged "notable", then merge content into the article on The Freethinker. Dannyno (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep This now has sources, and enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. I would not consider sources 1 and 3 to be dictionaries, despite the name of source 3 - dictionaries do not generally include biographical information about people, which this does (its description on Google Books includes "The names of many people whose lives or work reflect freethought principles form a major portion of the entries.). Both are more like encyclopaedias, which are allowed as sources, per WP:RSPRIMARY: "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited." So there are 3 main WP:RS. Apart from that, he was the editor for 5 years of a magazine which had existed for 112 years by the time he took over the editorship. For an academic journal, that would be a pass of WP:NACADEMIC #8: "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Guardian obit and other sources recently added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2019 (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.