Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Galsworthy
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
— User:EddieHugh, 14:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NACADEMIC||WP:AUTHOR||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)