Deletion of Mike Galsworthy

Comment: Even though the subject of the article attempted canvassing (though, I'll  there, as they said they are not familiar with Wiki rules), they still meet  as a political activist with several independent sources talking about him or organisations that he leads
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:GNG)

Comment: I approached this somewhat methodically, and ignored the canvassing in favor of policy arguments. I first reviewed the sources. I excluded any sources written by Mr. Galsworthy, since they are primary sources and are all opinion pieces about Brexit.  I don't see that a case is being made that notability is based on his meeting . I also excluded his academic papers as sources, since we're also not basing notability on scientific achievements, per . Those sources seemed to be a roundabout way of substantiating his academic career.  I then looked up his organizations to see if they were notable; what I'm finding is that by Wikipedia guidelines, they are not - there's no sign that any of the groups meet . Compounding this is the lack of in-depth coverage of Mr. Galsworthy himself, coverage we'd expect to see with a notable person's article.  I hope others will confirm the absence of material on his early life and education. What we're left with is essentially a case of  - with the 1E being his vocal opposition to Brexit. That's not enough in my experience to demonstrate notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NWRITER||WP:NSCIENTIST||WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: As noted, does not satisfy |general notability as written.  Also appears to be primarily a statement of his views and those of his organization rather than a neutral encyclopedic article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: MG definitely doesn't meet  or , so we need to consider just , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There are lots of sources in the MG article; they can be split into four groups: 1) things written by MG; 2) things written by his employer/organisation; 3) things that contain some MG quotations and/or a brief statement about his employer/organisation; 4) more detailed accounts of him/his organisation. Per GNG ("'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it"), 1 and 2 are not independent, so cannot be used to establish notability. Those that are in group 3 mostly do not "address ... the topic directly and in detail" (GNG again) – they just report some brief comments he made/state what organisations he founded/state where he currently or used to work. That leaves group 4, which in my view contains only the recently added online Austrian newspaper piece, which gives more detail about MG's opinions (although it doesn't include anything extra about him as a person rather than his views). I first raised the matter of his notability three weeks ago https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Galsworthy&diff=849962970&oldid=849962588 and almost no sources have been found that can contribute to meeting the most fundamental notability criterion that we have: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so I opt for 'delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC||WP:AUTHOR||WP:GNG)

Comment: I created this article and '''I did not receive any notification that it had been made the subject to an AfD'''. My reasons for regarding Galsworthy as notable comes from his being a '''media commentator on Brexit'''. That inevitably (and I would have thought obviously) means that the two organisations which he co-founded "Scientists for EU" and "Healthier IN the EU" feature largely in his biography and are therefore not . It's like suggesting that Theresa May's bio seems to have a lot about the Conservative Party (UK) in it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: I don't see a single indication of notability in terms of specific coverage that would leave us without any doubt with regards to notability per . There are a number of similar critics and due to the present political atmosphere, many of them are receiving some coverage but still that's not enough for separate article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Passes GNG marginally.  Need to trim out the |coatracking of organizations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Fails  being a commentator on Brexit, and writing for The Guardian is not notable in itself, unless this has been independently documented in-depth, incidentally, 13 of the current sources are to his own work
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: clear failure of . The person is known for his commentaries about Brexit and having his opinion published as opinion pieces https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/21/medicine-agency-britain-brexit-european-medicines-agency-industry but this is not enough for confirming the 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: I think this AfD ought to be read in conjunction with rticles for deletion/European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom) and rticles for deletion/Britain for Europe. There is an element of  leading to quasi- going on with regards articles about groups / individuals that express anti-Brexit sentiment. I don't think it's co-ordinated but then it do esn't need to be. The lack of notification about AfDs that is creeping in is particularly problematic. 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:A||WP:FOLLOWING||WP:CANVASSING||WP:NOTCENSORED)