Deletion of Christopher Thomas O'Higgins

Comment: per nom. The subject of the article does not establish notability. Much of the article isn't even about him. It looks like an |autobiography or a |hoax
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Autobiography (WP:AUTO||WP:HOAX)

Comment: WRT "authenticated sources" -- sources do not have to be online to be considered .  There are sources where there is a formal or informal consensus that they are not , even though they have a surface appearance of being legitimate news organizations.  In this particular case I don't see anyone offering a reason why we should not consider the references this article uses to be .  This is the first time, in my four years on the wikipedia, I have seen the term "authenticated sources" used.  I'd welcome an explanation of what respondent thinks this term means, and who they think we should count on for that authentication?  Who do they propose would have the responsibility to initiate this authentication
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:RS)

Comment: Offline references continue to be , since readers can go to a library and request a paper copy.  I am sorry to report I did not fully understand this for a long time, and I used to remove "dead links".  This is counter-policy, when the reference includes sufficient information for a dubious reader to hunt down a paper copy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I looked for policy of persons who are members of the nobility.  There is a otability (Royalty), which also addresses the nobility, minor nobility, and landed gentry.  The essay (did not/has not) acheived consensus.  I thought it was worth mention, nevertheless.  Off the top of my head I think all British peers merit coverage, there aren't that many of them.  It sounds like this guy is ''"minor nobility/landed gentry"'', who I agree do not automatically merit coverage
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)