Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Maynard

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 keep‎. Although opinion is evenly divided, the source assessment tips argument over into a Keep closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Maynard

[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)

Non-notable. All references are to interviews which the subject himself has promoted. No secondary sources give grounds for evaluation. Smerus (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think saying how bad things are in Gaza is enough for notability, frankly, it's evident at this point how dire the situation is. Other than speaking about how bad things are there, the one or two lines for his career are routine. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Nick Maynard points out war crimes that Israel denies, so his statements are important. Adlerauge99 (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but no - he is clearly using the Wikipedia platform to further his own agenda and there is no wider interest in his personal views. As noted elsewhere, the article is basically his CV plus his comments on one particular matter, expressed in a very partisan way. This may have support, but it's not sufficient to justify an article. 2A00:23D0:44D:6301:5D6B:9E99:52B1:FA9D (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you just said it correct. The subject is pretty clearly not the one who wrote the article. There is clear wider interest in his views (see [1]), nothing in the article is written like a CV, and there is nothing partisan about the article, and as far as I have read, nothing super partisan about his advocacy. Ike Lek (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So please provide better sourcing than what we have, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMO, the subject is close to notability; there are, for example, two articles in CNN and NPR that appear to contribute to notability. But there so far only about those sources and 2 others, so it's a little unclear whether there is widespread coverage enough to meet threshold. But I would not be surprised if there would be in the next month (but we are not a crystal ball). GuardianH 14:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not given a reason that would be sufficient to delete this article. Adlerauge99 (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed secondary sources, namely other doctors and humanitarian aid workers. For example: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/19/gaza-hospitals-surgeons-00167697 Adlerauge99 (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adlerauge99 -- feel free to put in a "!vote" for Keep by adding it in bold before this statement. (I'm not voting yet -- it seems borderline and I could be persuaded to keep, especially if the articles are from more than, say, 6 months apart to show that he has sustained a reputation as an expert, or by the argument that the news coverage is only tangentally about him.) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability relates to a single issue, needs WP:SUSTAINED. JFW | T@lk 12:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The earliest independent coverage cited in the article is from 2023. Considering he is still receiving coverage in 2025 [2][3], I think that is enough for WP:SUSTAINED. As for claims to a lack of non-interview coverage, here are some [4][5]. And just because I anticipate this response, no, it isn't non-independent just because it includes quotes. – Ike Lek (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The calls for deletion appear to be motivated by political bias in favour of Israel. This is not remotely acceptable. I trust that Wikipedia will not delete this, althouh I would agree with anyone saying it would benefit from expansion.

J.A. 92.24.165.66 (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Has this suspicious single-purpose IP edit in favor of a "keep" been measured against the blocked account or any others contributing here for potential socking? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sustained coverage of Maynard and his work in Gaza is sufficient to show notability, imv. (t · c) buidhe 19:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sustained coverage of work in Gaza, awarding of the Humanitarian Medal per WP:ANYBIO, and a healthy several thousand citation count per Scopus contributing to a claim per WP:NPROF. ResonantDis_tortion 20:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the references mentioned in the article [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11]. LKBT (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC) _{Blocked for UPE. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)}[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete. Nick Maynard's profile, specifically his experience as a British surgeon in Gaza is of interest to a wide audience. Entry needs expansion and more references, including his media interviews. 2001:630:E4:4220:95A8:60F0:A64F:AE65 (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Various references mentioned above account for significant coverage. Per WP:BLP1E and WP:1E, I believe that Dr Nick Maynard should have a WP entry, though the current one is a bit lackluster. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than enough references given to satisfy WP:GNG, from a range of reliable and independent news sources. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage is already sustained and widespread. Jahaza (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion is nearly evenly divided. A source analysis would be helpful in coming to a consensus decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has been open too long, so I figured as someone who had commented to help a newbie, but otherwise been not-involved, I should do the requested Source Analysis. The numbering is of footnotes in the article as of this revision. The dates in the current article are quite often off by a lot.

1. "Oxford, George Grylls (1 May 2024). "British surgeon haunted by Gaza horrors pledges to go back" -- this is undersourced in the article -- which doesn't mention it is from The Times (London) -- and incorrectly dated (correct: 4 Feb. 2024 not 4 Apr. 2024: article) -- Source: Top; relevance: Top (main topic of the article).
2. BBC News "Surgeon ready to help" -- Nov. 23 -- Source: Top; relevance: Top (main topic).
3. Tribune Magazine. "Interview with Nick Maynard" (Feb. 2024) -- Source: Major (since 1937). relevance: Top (interview as expert).
4. NYT (March 2024) -- Source: Top. relevance: significant (paragraph+ of quotes plus video quote) as expert among others.
5. Democracy Now (March 2024) -- Source: Significant; relevance: Top (interview as expert)
6. ABC News (US) (January 2024) -- Source: Major; relevance: Major (talking head as expert)
7. CNN News (before May 2024) -- Source: Major/Top?; relevance: Major ( talking head as expert)
8. Telegraph (January 2024) -- Source: Top/Major. relevance: Top (among the highest) -- his recollections are treated as prima facia evidence.

I decided to stop here -- it doesn't relly matter what the two Irish Examiner, OKS, Sky News, Irish Independent, King's Association, etc. sources say, there a are so many different top-respect RS giving entire articles about his expertise over at least an 8-month period to make it a simple GNG case. I started this analysis thinking the evidence here looked like a lean/weak keep, but now I'll put down my !vote as Strong Keep -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and Oaktree and others that have pointed out that sourcing is not wide enough and across enough time for a article on this BLP. Given WP:CRYSTALBALL points as well, it needs more time. Delete it for now as WP:TOOSOON.Iljhgtn (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2025 (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.