Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip A. Haigh


 * 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. Issue regarding lack of coverage in RS not addressed.  MBisanz  talk 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Philip A. Haigh

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

not at all notable, no references whatsoever to be considered notable, autobiography Troyster87 (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Autobiographical? Yes. No references currently given in the article? Yes. Article has previously been deleted via PROD? Yes. But none of those are the questions being asked here. The question is, is he notable by WP's policies? And the answer, from the small amount of research I've done, is absolutely. I've put what I've found over on the talk page for someone's writing pleasure.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  —Dori (Talk • Contribs) 08:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy unless it's rescued. The nominator mixes up two concepts. A lack of sources makes something hard to verify and potentially unverifiable, but people can be notable through other means than the WP:GNG even if the sources to prove it are not yet apparent. Based on the information on the talk page I suspect Dori's claim it can be improved is true, but if it's eventually deleted, it should be for the right reasons. Unverifiability, not notability issues. _ Mgm|(talk) 11:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep minor notability, but notablility nevertheless. I googled him and found references to two books, which I ahve listed.  I cannot vouch for his outdoor hobbies etc. which thus remain unreferenced.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment To answer comments on my rationale, this article should still be deleted, any claims of notability are refuted by lack of reliable sourcing and verifiability. Read WP:AFD.Troyster87 (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Lack of verifiable sources to support article content. BLP should not exist unless the article content has strong sources to verify content. Additionally, there is no evidence that sources exist to write a comprehensive article about the person. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of independent sources. Stifle (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2009 (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.