Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lives of Winston Churchill and Alfred Milner


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The Lives of Winston Churchill and Alfred Milner

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

While very well written and sourced, none of the sources actually discuss the topic of the article. Rather, this WP editor has created an article which is full of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, based upon those sources. Fails WP:GNG, also the SYNTH and OR issues.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - someone needs a blog or a newspaper column; this is not encyclopedic content. JMWt (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Churchill and Milner clearly had an interesting relationship, but I would claim that Churchill had similar relationships with many other individuals in his life. I think that very few of them warrant their own article, and all of the content in this article is either covered in the subject's pages (i.e. experience working in the press, Milner's attendence at Doullens) or not notable enough to justify an article on them specifically (i.e. Churchill's comments on Milner's book.)Spiralwidget (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe the two are suitable comparisons, because they were both very important to saving the life of England. Lord Milner (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It could be argued that Haig, Jellicoe, Beatty, Lloyd George, Turing, Chamberlain, Attlee, Lawrence of Arabia, Churchill, Milner, etc were very important to saving the 'life of England'. Do you plan on writing an article comparing and exploring the relationships between each of them? Already that is 10! Articles. Likely you would be writing thousands of articles which would then need to be maintained. This is an essay rather than an article, and it is not neutral because the entire premise of the article is to justify the article's own existance (i.e. find any connection between Churchill and Milner possible to make it appear that they had a notable enough relationship to warrant an article). I understand that the sources are all reliable, but you also do come to speculative conclusions within the article, for example that Churchill was Milner's Protoge, or that the two had feuds or such. It is a good essay and well-written, but this is not the place in my opinion.Spiralwidget (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear case of OR. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, History,  and England. Skynxnex (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Add Although I am not an expert writer, I have not consciously or unconsciously WP:SYNTH'd (synthesized, melded, or added made up conclusions) to any sentence. This is a unique topic, similar to Public Oversight (United States) in my sandbox, but that does not make it original research. On OR, Wikipedia says, "Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source."  This I have done with every sentence.  On SYTH, it says, Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.  On this, I studiously avoiding drawing any conclusions, except perhaps in the first paragraph, where I compared WC's speech with that of Foch's, but even here, the conclusion comes from a book author, who is properly quoted.  I did add one word descriptions at the opening of every paragraph, but for this I hope I can be forgiven, because I just wanted to liven up an otherwise extremely dull subject. I also have a picture of Winston Churchill (last one, bottom left) with a sour puss, but it is not my preferred one.  There is a picture of Winston walking to work on budget day (the day the 1924 budget was due) alongside his daughter, Diana. That is the one I would like to add, but it is very hard to find given UK copywrite restrictions.  So I ask that the editors take a clearer view of Wikipedia's guidelines, and to not become curlicue screwed.👍 Lord Milner (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is WP:SYNTH, and not suitable for a Wikipedia article. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - While a lot of work has obviously gone in to this and I hope it can find a home somewhere, this is not a Wikipedia article. There is original research and generally the relationships between two individuals are not going to be notable enough to need there own article and this is not an exception. Dunarc (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, but this is simply not encyclopaedic for the reasons stated above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The definition I have for encyclopedia follows...
 * A book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically.
 * Example: "if you're not familiar with a concept or topic, consult an encyclopedia"
 * ...so, the more, the merrier, and we are not limited by finite space. This is what makes wikipedia a better source than Encyclopedia Brittanica. Please, don't be so conservative.   Lord Milner (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is nothing compared to "Lord Milner's Life Timeline", in my sandbox: 900 bullet points backed up by 1,500 footnotes that would remain invisible in Wikipedia unless it is needed by someone, in which case they would be very happy indeed. Articles like these complete the missing pieces of the Wikipedia globe you see in the upper left hand corner of your screen, which I equate to everything missing by a conventional encyclopedia.  Again, my interest in Lord Milner is because he was a very important figure in Prime Minister David Lloyd George's War Cabinet, not because of a personal connection. Peace. Lord Milner (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2022 (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.