Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Curzon Price

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Curzon Price

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO because the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES are primary, including biographies and the like by related parties. No particular claim to notability is textually clear. JFHJr (㊟) 03:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, Politics, Economics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per The Telegraph (well beyond the Wikipedia:One hundred words suggestion for SIGCOV) and because we usually set the bar a little lower for sources that we might cite. (BTW, JFHJr, it's not necessary for an article to have a "particular claim to notability". Were you thinking about Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, which is a WP:CSD thing?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No particular claim to notability is in regards to finding a more specific criterion than GNG. Where are the multiple independent (unrelated to the subject) reliable sources providing significant coverage? JFHJr (㊟) 03:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is the one Telegraph article, but everything else that I find is non-independent. I find only a few academic articles and the citation counts are low (barely double and often single digits, one at 166 cites). Lamona (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.