Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom

WP:AFD/UK

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to the United Kingdom. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|United Kingdom|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to the United Kingdom.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

See also:

Scan for United Kingdom related AfDs

Scan for United Kingdom related Prods
Scan for United Kingdom related TfDs

United Kingdom

Whiteshield

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

Seems like a reasonably successful consulting company, but that doesn't seem to have translated into any coverage of the company in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Announcements of things they did are good and all, but they're not really the type of content that would meet our criteria for inclusion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, and United Kingdom. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page has a decent media coverage, has a general notability, cooperates with governments of various countries and with international organizations (such as the EBRD and UNESCO) thus responding to WP:GNG. Del Amol Banora (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep new sources added today are good, so the notability and coverage issues are not so strict. Cooperation with UNESCO, the European Bank for Reconstruction and other global institutions might help add more information and sources. --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Hobo

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

The company does not appear to be notable. I was not able to find any reliable source covering it beyond pass-by mentions in interviews. OceanHok (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. OceanHok (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ordo Aurum Solis

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

Seems almost whole primary sources, thus seems to not pass wp:n Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astrology and Paranormal. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be found, in which case the article would, of course, need to be completely rewritten. Brunton (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which still might be best to nuke it for orbit and start from scratch? Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources that would indicate notability outside of the bubble built by a couple of authors. –Austronesier (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Unsure was thinking delete unless reliable sources can be found for this purported hermetic order. But maybe sources exist. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article suffers from poor management and sourcing, but it is not a non-notable organization in its "field," arguably on par with the Ciceros' Golden Dawn order, the now-defunct Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn, the Crowleyan A∴A∴/OTO and the (also under-written) Fraternitas Rosae Crucis. It would give an incomplete picture for this org to not have its own page. I'd mentioned this before, but maybe I could give this article a real try at sourcing. As was suggested above, starting from scratch (but without deletion) might be the best option.

AnandaBliss (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its been tagged as needing this for over 10 years. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some Google Scholar entries apparently exist. I have not reviewed yet. [1]

Spirit Level Film

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

In short, fails WP:GNG and lacking of WP:RS. Source consists of WP:PRIMARY. The BBC source does not credit the production company. This, like many of those also listed via AfD, may have been created by WP:COI. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Politics, Companies, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GT Racer

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

Source is entirely unsourced, does not assert notability other than being broadcasted on a cable channel and thus fails WP:GNG SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Transportation, and United Kingdom. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Rogers

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. within the past few days) and fails to address WP:GNG in his nominations. Regardless, 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate. JTtheOG (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: You're the one who de-prodded all of my nominations, so you don't get to complain now that they're at AFD, which is where nominations go when the PROD has been removed. Add to that your bad faith aspersions. A disagreement as to what qualifies as "significant coverage" is not evidence of bypassing anything. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Towler-Green

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and United Kingdom. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skye Lucia Degruttola

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

Non notable actress, Fails NACTOR and GNG - Her role in Grantchester is only recurring and unfortunately I've not found anything substantial online (all are one-bit mentions), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puddingstone Distillery

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

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient significant independent coverage. Uhooep (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Capstick-Dale

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

Being the 316th wealthiest person does not guarantee notability. Subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Only two sources from the Evening Standard may establish notability, but one is an interview. All others are brief statements, mentions, a listing, and unreliable content. Toadette^Edit! 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, France, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Fuller

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

Lack of notability. All but one of the sources are about the company he worked for; the remaining on is merely a list entry and does not, imo, go any way whatsoever to establishing notability. TheLongTone (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "37th richest person" isn't quite notable. Sources are about the company he sold, so don't contribute to his notability, outside of any other sourcing... There is nothing that I find about this person. The company could perhaps be notable, this individual isn't. Oaktree b (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do find some articles about him, but they are quite thin. There is the sale of his business Yorkshire news but the same content can be found in the cited articles so I assume it was a press release. The other "news" is that him fighting with neighbors about peasant shooting on his estate: Telegraph Yorkshire Post. I just don't see either his business affairs or his spats with neighbors to come up to GNG. Lamona (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retro (DJ)

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

No sign of notability, searching for this guy returns basically nothing, and the three sources hardly qualify for WP:GNG (one of them is a YouTube video). Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Music, and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that this fails GNG. I've only been able to find three mentions other than his own site.^[1]^[2]^[3] None are significant coverage. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Batte, Elliott. "Dappy Unveils 'Good Intentions' Video - Watch Now - Stereoboard". Stereoboard.com. Retrieved 2024-05-08.
^ "RIO's not so Unpredictable future". 2010-08-03. Retrieved 2024-05-08.
^ "Dappy debuts new single 'Come With Me'". Digital Spy. 2012-06-27. Retrieved 2024-05-08.

List of premium large format cinema screens in the UK

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, Lists, and United Kingdom. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dozens of hours went into gathering this information that otherwise isn't in an accessible format anywhere on the internet. It's carefully sourced and cited and all of these are notable in their own right (premium format screens make up less than 1% of all cinema screens in the UK). There are literally dozens of far less useful articles that are untouched. In particular there are hundreds of lists of shopping malls in different countries on Wikipedia that are clearly tolerated by the rules. What makes this list fundamentally different than a list of shopping malls?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridges_in_the_United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_railway_bridges_and_viaducts_in_the_United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shopping_centres_in_the_United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shopping_centres_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_size

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shopping_malls_in_France

143.58.201.143 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, WP:HARDWORK and WP:MERCY aren't useful as keep arguments. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 143.58.201.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While we're drawing attention to single purpose accounts, I note that Spaced Farmer has made few or no other edits to any other topic on Wikipedia. Almost the entirety of their 2,000+ contributions were for the single purpose of getting articles deleted. 143.58.201.143 (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost the entirety of their 2,000+ contributions were for the single purpose of getting articles deleted not to take this to far off topic but looking at their x-tools (here) less than half their edits have been to the Wikipedia name space, with about a third of those going to deletion sorting. All of which is to say they are obviously not a WP:SPA Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep rationale. The vast majority of citations are to directory-type entries at imax.com, and I could find no source that discusses the topic of the list as a group (the closest I could find is: [2]). If someone really cares about finding premium format screens in the UK, there are better places (such as imax.com) to find that information; WP:NOTDIRECTORY. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and/or WP:NOTDATABASE Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List provides context with specific technical information. Encompasses more than just imax theaters, and sources more information than imax.com provides in their directory (which also is a search only directory). The list is limited in scope, and it appears to have been steadily improved with sourcing and links to wiki articles about the theaters. Sourcing is still limited and overly reliant on imax.com and the remains of lfexaminer. Further context and links to wiki articles are needed. Worthy of improvement, but in my reading of WP:NOTDIRECTORY it does not fall to the level of an overly broad contextless “phone book” list. FriendlyToaster (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This discussion is mentioned off-wiki here and here Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and/or WP:NOTDATABASE too. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE. Let'srun (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTDATABASE, cited only to primary sources, doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Wikipedia is not a web host and there are plenty of other places to store random lists. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EMR Regional

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

I can't see that there's any coverage of this line of services that is distinct from East Midlands Railway, nor do I think this is a good candidate for a WP:CFORK. The only additional content that exists here is a WP:DIRECTORY of every route this provider operates on. BrigadierG (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and United Kingdom. BrigadierG (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage of EMR Regional relates to its plans to refurbish its rolling stock, which seems to be smaller and older than that used by EMR Intercity. I found several references for refurbishment and added them to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the main scope of the page is to describe the routes its operating on. Because An article that is only about refurbishments of something is almost never allowed and can be placed on the relevant part of the article instead. Plus it is not titled refurbishment of the EMR fleet. It seems as though EMR are either brand new trains (class 810, due to enter within 12 months), sourcing newer trains (class 170, built 1998-2005) or in the process of refurbishment after it withdrew its HSTs, 153s, 156s and even the 180s. JuniperChill (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not only that, but please also note WP:REFBOMB. No more than three sources per sentence, plus I am not sure about the reliability of these sources. JuniperChill (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> Actually, the main scope of the page is to describe the routes its operating on.

Have you been familiar with the discourse surrounding similar subjects such as lists of airline destinations? I'm really loathe to have more of these kinds of big piles of information on Wikipedia without further context? There's moderate consensus (albeit several years old) that these things are generally not good bases for articles. BrigadierG (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are just reprints of press releases - replacing some of your trains is just a normal run-of-the-mill activity when you operate a train line. I'm not contesting that the operator itself is notable, just the idea that its two train services need separate articles of their own. See WP:ROTM BrigadierG (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Selective merge to East Midlands Railway. This article is little more than a timetable at present without any justification for being split from the East Midlands Railway article. Eastmain refbombing with press releases actually makes me more convinced this isn't a notable topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Samuel, 5th Viscount Samuel

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

Relatively new British nobleman who never sat in the House of Lords, fails WP:BIO. There's not much outside of wiki-clones when looking this person up on Google News or Google Books: all we get as far as printed material goes are the usual suspects, Burke's Peerage (tertiary, not in-depth), Debrett's (idem), and I suppose Who's Who (autobiographical, not independent, generally unreliable at WP:RSP). Pilaz (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and United Kingdom. Pilaz (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article makes no actual claim to notability. Poorly sourced. Should have been speedied two years ago. AusLondonder (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this the 5th Viscount? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Evidently not. The 5th Viscount's entry at ThePeerage.com gives his date of birth as 17 December 1965. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Viscount Samuel - valid WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Viscount Samuel. There's insufficient here for a stand-alone article. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Viscount Samuel per above. Keivan.f^Talk 20:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. ✗plicit 14:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Education and Research Opportunities in the UK

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/H.E.R.O. (Higher Education and Research Opportunities in the UK)

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

Defunct goverment website without any claim to notability. previous AfD was "no consensus" but keep arguments didn't seem to go past USEFUL (even then I can't tell if they were saying that the article is useful or the website itself) and the article has not had any sources since then.

The generic name makes searching difficult, but I find it highly unlikely that what was only ever an information portal would have seen significant coverage. I did find all of one entry in a directory which doesn't really establish anything. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Websites, and United Kingdom. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced and nothing to suggests notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:01, 13 May 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.

Unzela Khan

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

It appears the subject doesn't meet the WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR, as their works don't seem noteworthy enough. The press coverage in WP:RS also not significant or in depth enough, so fails to meet WP:GNG. Does not satisfy WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Pakistan, and United Kingdom. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is not noteworthy.

Crosji (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or better to be moved to the draft Kotebeet (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with the nominator. A British Muslim Awards recipient is already qualified for a Wikipedia entry per WP:ANYBIO and from the article was cited to a reliable source per WP:RS. Also, as a journalist of a notable newspaper or TV which she was for Huffpost give us assurance of passing WP:JOURNALIST. She also wrote a book which is notable enough to qualify WP:NAUTHOR. What's then needed for an article? Not being braid doesn't mean it came be a standalone article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @Saqib, @Crosji, and @Kotebeet for the argument per se. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I so saw so may PR but was able to get reliable ones. See here and here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, I'm curious about how she meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria simply for working at Huffpost. The policy doesn't say anything like this. Additionally, is writing just one book sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One book which is reviewed by reliable sources is considered as notable. But may not require a article. However, we usually have problem when journalists wrote about others as few or less writing about them, in other way, winning an award for such excellence in media is part of both ANYBIO and JOURNALISM. While these are additional criteria, the article generally meets our general notability guidelines where being cited to reliable sources, verifiable and significantly covered per WP:SIGCOV. Even as there isn't any fact for such, a redirect should have served better not only when she won a major award and a book mistake reviewed. Let's be truthful herein and ignore certain additional essays. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because the article raises concerns regarding its credibility due to several factors: 1) Excessive Referencing: With only six sentences, the presence of ten references seems disproportionate. This abundance of citations may suggest an attempt to over-validate the content rather than provide genuine support for the points made. 2) Questionable Contributor: The primary contributor, "User:Kotebeet," [contributed approximately 80% of the content], is no longer active on the platform. This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor.--Crosji (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crosji, you are wrong here. I disagree that an AFD process requires the author except in major cases like undisclosed WP:UPE or thereabout. I am asking you do look at the article by our process of inclusion; WP:GNG. If you have any issue with the creator, then face them. I can't find any argument you're making besides you vote says "not noteworthy". Meaning? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crosji, also there is no issue of WP:REFBOMB here. I don't seem to understand your statement This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor, when a creator doesn't require anything on whether to delete an article or keep them. However, this is a process and you can't vote twice. Do remove any of the votes. Thanks! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Davis

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. Co-founder of Rolex. Article is basically just tidbits of Rolex history with mentions of him. Half of the small amount of material in the article is Rolex history that doesn't even mention him. The same with sources; there are no sources on him much less GNG sources. I did a search with the same results. Rolex history with just mentions of him in that context. Article was prodded by others in October and de-prodded by creator. During NPP work I did a merge/redirect into Rolex (there was no real material to merge) and creator reversed that. I don't think that the creator understands wp:notability; I left a note on their talk page explaining that it's about coverage. North8000 (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This book: [3] might have something, but I don't have access to it. The two sources cited in the article don't seem to be RS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rolex. No notability independent of the company. Nothing in Internet Archive or newspapers.com beyond the basic fact of having founded the company with Wilsdorf. Jfire (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by ITV

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NOTDIRECTORY/NOTTVGUIDE. List criteria is programming "that are either currently being broadcast or have previously been broadcast", Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide, current or historical. Fails NLIST, no independent reliable sources discuss this as a group. BEFORE found programing schedules, nothing more. List has grown so much is it hard to tell if any of it is original programming, BEFORE did not find sources showing original programming discussed as a group. // Timothy :: talk 07:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. — Maile (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RouteNote

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Out of the 9 sources in the article only 4 could have the potential to count towards NCORP, and out of the 4, I am not entirely satisfied with their independence. ([4][5][6][7]). This article appeared for me while doing WP:NPP and I wasn't comfortable accepting it and with the last AfD being no consensus, I thought I'd opt for the AfD route. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M Group Services

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

M&A activity appears to be pretty much the totality of the available sourcing, and that is excluded from establishing notability per WP:ORGTRIV. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Quick Shave and Brush-up

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

No evidence that this is a notable film. Can be redirected to George Albert Smith (filmmaker)#Selected filmography. Fram (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merge all these old ones into 1900 in film? Hyperbolick (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like agood idea. Carnival200 (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a good* Carnival200 (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Albert Smith (filmmaker)#Selected filmography: As I mentioned ~~in my ES~~/ in the OLDPROD template on article TP/ when I Dpdd the article (and on creator's TP). Not opposed to K. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it seems that you didn't mention this in this case (you did mention a redirect target in some others though). Fram (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me check. Not in my ES, that's right. But please have a look at the OLPROD template on article TP. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, hadn't seen that. First time I see someone adding extra info there (not saying that's a bad thing, just something I didn't expect). Fram (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Wreck in a Gale

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

No evidence that this 43-second film is notable, hasn't received significant attention. No good redirect target found. Fram (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NFILM as I mentioned in my edit summary when I "PROD-conned" it. See the guideline. Shown at festival more than 5 years after production. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That line in NFILM gives only a presumption which needs to be supported by reliable sources indicating that it meets WP:GNG. A screening on a niche festival which shows more than 500 such rediscoveries each year is hardly a clear indication of importance, more of being a curio of passing interest. Fram (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for sharing your opinion. I'll stand by my Keep, if you allow me, as I find this short clearly does meet the inclusionary criteria (not only a "line"), which is quite clear. It also proves, btw, that this short has received the "significant attention" you mentioned in your rationale. What you call a "niche festival" has indeed been a very important film event for almost 40 years. You are free to call this "a curio of passing interest" but the film has been screened at a very notable festival (much) more than 5 years after its production and that is, I'm afraid, a fact. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. N:FILM says "meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film," and that is true here, where there are no reliable sources to describe the notability of this film beyond its mere existence. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. The Cinema Ritrovato program included 17 different works. The idea that coverage of it would trickle down to this 43-second actuality film is not a reasonable interpretation of WP:NFILM. hinnk (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In another ongoing discussion (4 1900 short films were AfDd at the same time) @Carnival200 and Hyperbolick: you mentioned "Maybe merge all these old ones into 1900 in film?" as a good idea. I am wondering if you had this film in mind too. Although I stand by my K !vote, I am not opposed to the idea of a redirect; some of the refs can be added there and it seems like an acceptable ATD. 17:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)[reply]

Ladysmith – Naval Brigade Dragging 4.7 Guns into Ladysmith

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

No indication that this is a notable film (well, a 31 second static shot). Apparently not only have we no idea who actually made it (just the producre), but we also don't know what is being shown according to this. Perhaps some list for this and many similar non-notable shorts may be feasible, but at the moment I don't see a good redirect target. Perhaps William Kennedy Dickson filmography, which gives an idea of the number of such ultrashort films that were made (and is clearly incomplete, as e.g. this very one isn't on that list). Fram (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, Military, South Africa, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William Kennedy Dickson filmography: As I mentioned when I DPd the page (and on creator's TP) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC) (Entry is now in the target; sources can be added if R is the path chosen)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Chaplain to the King

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

This page is fundamentally flawed. The position of Honorary Chaplain to the King is a military appointment, for serving regular and reserve chaplains in the British and some Commonwealth armed forces. However much of the text refers to Chaplains to the King, who are members of the Ecclesiastical Household of the Royal Household, and are civilians, usually senior parish priests. I do not believe that the article can be repaired. As an alternative to deletion it would have to be wholly rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncox001 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC); listed on the log at 21:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Christianity, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The inaccuracies can easily be ironed out but the topic is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Nothing found in article or BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. If sources are found that provide direct and indepth coverage, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 03:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator's contention is incorrect - Honorary Chaplain to the King is NOT a military appointment. In recent times a number of HCs have been appointed from the forces but many are also appointed who have no link to the forces. All are absolutely part of the ecclesiastical household. As such, the assertion that the article "cannot be repaired" is flawed. It should be improved, perhaps by starting here (p304) which details the creation of the position in 1881.----Pontificalibus 06:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As lacking significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Also per WP:TNT: if someone believes this topic is notable, create a new article that's not a mess like this and with sufficient sources. AusLondonder (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TNT is not necessary for a small stub such as this, any corrections can be made in situ. Has reliable sources book coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here, the discussion is ongoing and would benefit from editors knowledgeable about this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An interesting and informative article about a position not necessarily written about often, nor well-known outside the UK. This would be even better with expansion. — Maile (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Premier League overseas broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, United Kingdom, and England. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Upon a search, I just get WP:PRIMARY sources from NBC, CBC, and tweets announcing who does which games. It's trivia and can be placed into the main broadcasting article. Conyo14 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant information and sources have been added to the article that will help give it more notability. [8], [9], [10], [11]--Claudio Fernag (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTCRUFT still applies, you think an article on some junk list makes a list notable, think again. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Claudio Fernag. Esolo5002 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is well passed here and the sourcing for this list is certainly not in question, while the article is monitored closely to revert any errors or vandalism near immediately. We disqualify outright press releases, but certainly not reliable news sources, and the nominator is advised that they are perfectly acceptable to source a broadcast partner. Nate • (chatter) 18:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are as of now, at least 84 different sources in the article to back up its notability efforts or quota. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but all but 6 are for articles, the rest are excuses to claim WP:RS. This argument is so 2007. Try harder next time. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes there are 84 sources, but not many are actually WP:SIGCOV of Premier League broadcasters, they're just saying "in country X, company Y have a contract for Z years and W money". I don't see any good quality sources e.g. linking overseas broadcasters together in one source (apart from [12], which is one source), which is a suggestion at WP:LISTN for when a list might be notable. This just read like a TV directory. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is the one on broadcasting rights that has the best and most sources, I see no reason to delete it, it is completely encyclopedic.

PIKACHUNESS (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:ILIKEIT. An analysis of the sources would help. Conyo14 (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is very valuable resource about the topic. Regpath (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another WP:ILIKEIT, please provide a policy-based rationale for keeping. Conyo14 (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, WP:ITSUSEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is no longer just an article about a list of broadcasters as it was in the beginning, now a context has been added that gives it notability and verifiable and reliable sources have been added, so the information must be maintained, but maybe in this case what should be done is move this to List of Premier League broadcasters, as it was previously, so that everything is grouped in a single article, both local and international rights.--Edu1388 (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the merge suggested above over deletion. Conyo14 (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here, one editor supporting a Merge but I see no target article mentioned here, just a proposal for a rename. This article has been expanded greatly since its nomination and a review of those newly added sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Bell (figure skater)

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; ineligible for PROD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Junior School

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

PROD countered. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, articles about primary schools are only kept if they can be shown to meet WP:NORG. That is not the case here. Indeed, this is an article about a kindergarten. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Kenya, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It is also a story about a UK-based charity. I added a few references. Hopefully just enough to save this story.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ruud Buitelaar.Tamsier (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although happy to consider a suitable redirect. I'm sorry but there is just not enough information about this school, as is the case of the vast majority of junior schools. Yes, this one is a charitable venture. Lots of them are. There are now four sources on the page. I analyse these below (with the first SHOFCO source being the only one that was there prior to AfD). On my analysis we do not have anything that meets WP:SIRS. There is almost nothing we can actually say about this school in an article. Source analysis:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
SHOFCO [13]	SHOFCO is Shining Hope for Communities, US based, I think it is a charity, and with a focus on Kibera.	SHOFCO appears legitimate. I have not investigated too hard on that score because this source fails on SIGCOV	The link is dead, but it is dated April 2009, and archive.org has a copy of the article [14]. There is no mention of this school at all in the article.	As there is no mention of the school, this is moot.
Charity Commission [15]			An overview of the charity, Maisha Tust. Nothing about th school. The charity is small too.	This is a primary source.
Optima [16]		Fitzwilliam College Newsletter with news of an alumna, the school's founder.	There is a single paragraph telling us that Sarah Shucksmith, a former Geography student, founded this school in her gap year, and they are building a new school building. It's creditable, but it's not notable.	– It is reporting and this is primary per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. However, as I know people will want to claim otherwise, and SIGCOV is not met anyway, I'll leave that as undetermined. It does not change anything.
Rus Newton [17]	This is a WP:SPS - a blog is a self published source	– I have no reason to say the writer is unreliable, but this is still self published.	To be honest, this would be well short of CORPDEPTH, but I would give ground to this being a charitable work, not a corporation. There is a little information here from which a page could be written, but it really isn't much. A lot more is needed, but I'll give it a yes on this one.	y

Delete per above, and based on my own long-standing factors. This is a very small charity/school that serves 65 young people. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

29 Armoured Engineer Squadron

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

In my opinion, the article is not notable. Similiar units almost certainly would not have an article. Only one reference is listed and it is not independent of the topic of the article.. PercyPigUK (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to vote to redirect this to the parent unit, but I'm really not sure what that unit actually is. It most recently seems to have been part of 35 Engineer Regiment but our article doesn't record that as currently being the case. Anyone know what the most suitable redirect is? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schwein

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting as previous nomination did not attract any comment and soft deletion was not applicable. Non-notable band that only lasted one year; no sources found in English or German. Sources in Japanese linked on the page do not show WP:SIGCOV. Broc (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Japan, Germany, and United Kingdom. Broc (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should stay up. Per v, point 6, the group consists of several independently notable musicians. Weiqwbo (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comment above, but also if only because having this content in each of the individual artist pages would be redundant (which is probably the point of Wikipedia:Notability (music) #6) -- t_kiehne (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Were they big in Japan? Bearian (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – KMFDM's parallel project, I believe it has enough notability. Svartner (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Office of the World Bank, London

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

Contested PROD of an individual office of the World Bank. No other office has its own page. Clearly fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect which is what I said should happen when I deprodded this. I'm just not certain what the best target is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the proposer of a merge or redirect cannot identify a target, that's a rather significant problem. You deprodded the article but failed to suggest a credible alternative to deletion. In that case, the article should be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - Altenmann >talk 03:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, merge what and to where? AusLondonder (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article merely confirms it exists. Fails GNG and not worth redirecting/merging. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the building that it's located in - originally assumed it was about the building, but it's about an office in the building which clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is wrong, the World Bank no long has an office at Millbank Tower. AusLondonder (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should delete it. SportingFlyer T·C 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is leaning towards deletion since a redirect target has not been identified. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Millbank Tower#Occupants as WP:ATD - plausible search term to existing article (unless I'm missing something bleeding obvious)? Ingratis (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we redirect to their former office location? That makes absolutely no sense. ATD doesn't mean we can never delete an article and should instead create incorrect and pointless redirects just so we don't have to ever delete anything. AusLondonder (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, there is no point redirecting to a former office location. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because: (a) it's not a newly-created redirect - see WP:R#KEEP #4: the article has been there for 11 years; (b) WP:R#KEEP #5 - just because you don't find it useful doesn't mean it isn't to someone; (c) in general WP:REDIRECT - the balance is to keep redirects unless they meet specific criteria for deletion, and this one doesn't; (d) why on earth would anyone come to Wikipedia to find the current London address of the World Bank? they are more likely to want reminding of its previous far higher profile location: Millbank Tower is notable, whereas 1 Tudor Street (as yet) is not; and (e) in any case the WB London current address is included in both articles.
I'll underline that I'm not advocating keeping the article itself. Ingratis (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a ridiculous and blatantly misleading redirect. How does it meet WP:RPURPOSE? I'm actually quite confused by your reasoning. In the unlikely event someone is looking for information on the London office of the World Bank how does redirecting them to Millbank Tower assist? Frankly a redirect in these circumstances would meet multiple criteria at WP:R#DELETE. AusLondonder (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, because apart from anything else the Millbank Tower article includes the current address of the World Bank in London (which is nowhere else on Wikipedia, I think), if there is anyone who is really too dim to use the World Bank's own website instead. We've reached the usual conclusion of a Wikipedia discussion - "I say it is" vs "I say it isn't" - and there'll be no further progress, so I'm leaving it there. Ingratis (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The key reason - there are no other branches on Wikipedia. And the references are poor enough. Delete without redirecting is also a good idea. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
obviously fails GNG

N 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holderness museums

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

Unclear what this article is even about. Mentions one small archive, without a claim to notability, shared across the 3 museums that aren't otherwise tied together. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, History, and United Kingdom. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This BBC reference explains the oral history project. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting coincidence that the project officer's name in that link is so similar the article creator. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its a project or scheme to record oral histories. Its not encyclopaedic. I searched and looked for sources but there's nothing I can find. Desertarun (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selectively merge into Hornsea Museum, or vice versa. They are one and the same registered charity. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvan Anderton

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

sportsperson stub. fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Kingdom. ltb d l (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The player appears to have a substantial number of appearances for Reading and Chelsea. I think it's a matter of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. Over 200 appearances in England's professional football league (verified by the Neil Brown source in the article sas well as sources like this), while a quick Google search brings up things like this and this which clearly indicate historical (read: offline) coverage. A lazy nomination. Giant Snowman 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
are those football cards? ltb d l (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...yes? Giant Snowman 07:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
football cards aren't reliable sources ltb d l (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has that ever been decided? I'd think if it were by a reputable company it would be reliable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's crazy ltb d l (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Football cards being reliable sources made me literally laugh out loud. AusLondonder (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't a reputable card company be reliable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
amazing. 10/10. no notes. ltb d l (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At no point have I claimed that football cards are reliable. I was merely suggesting that appearing on football cards - and, if you had bothered to Google him, all the other historical coverage at photo archives etc. - suggests there is coverage out there, which research by others below has supported. Giant Snowman 18:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the amount of games he played and the clubs he played for seems good enough, combined with GS sources above and probably much more WP:OFFLINESOURCES, this needs improvement for sure. Govvy (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than 200 professional appearances for teams with deep, deep histories and legacies. This is very obvious. Clearly notable. Anwegmann (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and lacks SIGCOV. An actual check of the newspapers.com archive finds nothing but mentions in match reports/transfer stories. He went on to play cricket for Bryant Rose Cricket Club and won the raffle four years in a row there but that is trivial stuff. NFOOTBALL has been depreciated since 2022 so any Keeps based on number of games played must be ignored by the closer. He isn't notable either for playing for some "notable" clubs per NOTINHERITED. Dougal18 (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I frequently see editors citing Wikipedia:But there must be sources! in AfDs for footballers with dozens of international caps. I'd like to see the same standard applied to footballers with "over 200 appearances in England's professional football league". How do football cards indicate offline coverage, @GiantSnowman:? As Dougal18 points out so far it has not been demonstrated that SIGCOV exists. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly per Dougal18's reasoning. Footballers are not inherently notable - they need to meet WP:GNG. This is clear community consensus. Simply asserting that an individual played for notable teams is not a suitable AfD argument. If nothing can be found in newspaper archives, then he's not notable. Another point is this is little more than an infobox and a pseudo-biography. AusLondonder (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a decent amount of newspaper coverage, although it is mostly brief-ish: see [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. An argument could be made for WP:NBASIC, considering he seemed to have significant amount of appearances for prominent clubs. Not sure if that changes anyone's views: @Ltbdl, AusLondonder, Dougal18, and Robby.is.on:? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good research! Giant Snowman 07:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Dougal and AusLondoner. Football cards do not contribute to notability at all, and given passing mentions in match reports don't count towards even BASIC for modern players they shouldn't count for old players either. We don't have a single piece of the required IRS SIGCOV, so we have no valid justification for retaining this article. JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He also has a biographical entry in Chelsea The Complete Record: author: Rick Glanvill isbn: 9781909245303 also mentioned in The Little Book of Reading FC - 1920-2008 author: Alan Sedunary isbn: 9781780913711. There maybe more books with biographical information. Govvy (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you tell us what exactly is in those books? Dougal18 (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glanvill is Chelsea's official historian, he is not an independent source. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @JoelleJay: That's not correct, nor is it proper to discredit him. Will you do the same for Historians who went to Oxford and Cambridge and write about those subjects? He is a published author and a reputable one at that. Please don't use this argument ever again on any credited club historian. Govvy (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's literally hired by the club to write about club history. Of course he isn't independent. And if a historian is employed by Oxford to write about Oxford history then they aren't independent either. JoelleJay (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: Again you really have no idea, the Chelsea book is independent to the club, published by De Coubertin Books deCoubertin Books is a leading independent publisher, which publishes outstanding non-fiction titles predicated on high editorial and production values. We work with some of the biggest names in sport and sportswriting and our books have been nominated for numerous awards. Being hired by a club doesn't make the book published by the club. Also the link provided says he is the club historian, because he is the top of his field in the history for the club, at no time does that post on the Chelsea page say he is hired directly for them. The Reading book is published by Breedon Books Publishing Co Ltd and not Reading Football Club. These are both independent publishers to the clubs. I really don't understand why you feel these are primary sources when they are not remotely so. Govvy (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being an employee of the club (He has worked for all Chelsea FC's publications and media since 1993 and is the club's official historian.) means the person has a COI with the club, and this applies to material the person publishes through independent publishers (and obviously anything authored by the club would go through an external publisher; it's not like each club has its own book publishing house; the "Official Biography" of Chelsea that he penned ... for the club is through Headline Publishing Group). We'd consider a book authored by a relative of the subject to be non-independent regardless of where it's published; the same applies here. And what part of "the club's official historian", as recorded on the club's website, makes you think he's not working directly for them.....
I didn't say anything about primary sources. I said they are non-independent. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is like arguing that an 'official biographer' of a celebrity should be discredited...nonsense! Giant Snowman 18:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An official biographer of a celebrity who was hired by that celebrity's talent agency should absolutely be discredited! JoelleJay (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sports cards are reliable sources stat-wise.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – For the arguments presented so far in the discussion. I see no reason to discredit a club historian, or sports cards, considering that the athlete played in the 50s and 60s. The sources presented by @Govvy demonstrate credibility. Svartner (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Credibility of who? Dougal18 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The authors of mentioned books. Svartner (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So employees of the football club are somehow exempted from the NSPORT guidance saying Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players if they don't publish directly on the website?
The sports cards are completely trivial stats coverage. Why would they count? JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The delete arguments seem a bit WP:IDONTLIKEIT, in their attempts to discredit what seems like reasonable coverage. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete claiming a biographer who is an employee of the company is an independent source is a strange notion.

Industrial Insect (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, because this type of historiographical survey is not carried out partially, but rather as a measure to preserve part of the institution's history. The likelihood of the book's author having tampered with these numbers is negligible, which in my opinion makes the source completely credible. Svartner (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Higgledy House (via WP:PROD on 8 September 2023)

Redirects

Templates

England

England women's cricket team in Ireland in 2024

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

Fails GNG, sources in article are passing mentions in routine sports news, nothing meeting WP:SIRS.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	1. "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	2. ^ "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi in September". CricTracker. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	3. ^ "Action-Packed Summer for Ireland Women, Sri Lanka and England Tours Await". Female Cricket. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	4. ^ "T20 World Cup in focus as Ireland outline busy summer schedule". International Cricket Council. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	5. ^ "Fixtures released for 2024". Cricket Ireland. Retrieved 13 May 2024.

Draft has been disputed. It is unlikely this match will generate WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 04:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, Ireland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace it's likely that when the event happens, it will gain coverage (as most England women's cricket internationals do). But too soon for a mainspace article, as it's 4 months until the event, and so 3+ months until coverage will likely start generating for this. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GJ Stoutimore

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

There is zero evidence of the subject's notability on any standard. Virtually every source is either to the subject's own writing, links to buy the subject's book, or marketing material. (Even apparently reliable sources are not; the Kirkus Reviews source is actually from "Kirkus Indie," a paid placement, and the BookTrib.com reviews are also paid placements on a book marketing platform.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The book has no notable reviews as explained, and there is no coverage of the author otherwise. What's used now in the article is primary sourcing or product placements. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, England, Florida, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Rhinos–Wakefield Trinity rivalry

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

No evidence that this is a particularly notable rivalry, if it can even be considered one at all. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was originally only about the festive challenge, but was renamed and expanded 3 years ago. Any rivalry between them appears no different than most other clubs in the area so the first part of the article could be section moved into West Yorkshire derbies. The festive challenge could be kept as a separate article but needs some improvement – currently this section is poorly sourced and incomplete (sources indicate it stared before 2009: BBC Sport, RFL). EdwardUK (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the festive challenge wasn't always exclusively a Leeds v Wakefield friendly (Leeds have played other opponents in the past: [25] [26]), so that part should definitely be removed or separated into another article. I've no problem with merging the rest with West Yorkshire derbies if others think it's notable enough for inclusion. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 5

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 2

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 1

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run of the mill bus, only sources are timetables bus maps or self published fansites. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove Breeze routes

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the routes have been discussed in various sources including the national broadcaster BBC News. I've added some of these to the article. Garuda3 (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nomination statement is misleading. This article is about a group of three related bus routes, not an individual one as stated, bringing into question how much attention has been paid to it and to whether any WP:BEFORE has been attempted? Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good spot. Garuda3 (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove Coaster routes

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nomination statement is misleading. This article is about a group of four related bus routes, not an individual one as stated, bringing into question how much attention has been paid to it and to whether any WP:BEFORE has been attempted? Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are all from the bus company or the local council. --wooden superman 20:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick Google found coverage on route 12 which is part of this article:

Is the No 12 from Brighton to Eastbourne really the best bus route in the world? - The Sunday Times
'I went on 'world's most scenic' bus route just an hour from London and it's everything you'd want from a journey' - MyLondon
Brighton to Eastbourne bus route named one of UK's best - The Argus
#AYearOfBuses 12: Coaster Brighton – Eastbourne - Transport Designed

Article should be improved, not deleted. Garuda3 (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added to the article, mainly using sources kindly provided by Garuda3, showing praise it has recieved for its scenery. harrz ^talk 21:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the sources presented here show that the Coaster routes (or at least route 12) does meet WP:GNG beyond routine coverage. Having a title "the best bus route in the world" evaluated by a national mainstream paper like The Times and noted as one of England's "most scenic" by another national mainstream paper like The Guardian [27] isn't something you see on your everyday bus route (unlike route 6 which is indeed non-notable). S5A-0043^Talk 02:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 7

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

Non-notable bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 14:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no need to read previous discussions, this one is sourced and seems to be a well-traveled and well-known route. Have removed prod speedy deletion from the page (please don't do that). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "sources" are links to the council's and the company's own website. This is a purely WP:Run-of-the-mill route, nothing notable about it at all, which you might have realised had you bothered to read the previous discussion, where even the page creator admits they couldn't find decent sources. --wooden superman 15:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bus and subway route articles are very common and acceptable on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I had intended to PROD this, but slipped on WP:Twinkle and accidentally AfD'd it instead. Apologies for the mess this has left, especially as it was de-prodded before I could get this AfD deleted. --wooden superman 15:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you prod something with sources? Maybe rethink your prod abilities, as this one is well within allowed Wikipedia article topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OK, there are sources, but they're not "decent sources"; in other words they contribute nothing to support the idea that this bus route in notable. Athel cb (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No apparent significance beyond being a bus route in a somewhat major city. If there was a more substantial history, it'd have a stronger case for notability. Sounder Bruce 17:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge My city has a 100+ bus routes which could have similar descriptions and sources to the local transit agency – this is not something we need individual articles for and notability is not shown with independent sources. A comparison to subway routes, which have substantial permanent infrastructure, is laughable, and certain bus routes could have significant secondary coverage not shown here. Brighton & Hove (bus company) could have a section or subarticle for its routes but the individual routes don't need stand-alone articles. Reywas92^Talk 21:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brighton & Hove (bus company). The notability of bus routes depends on the sources available; some routes pass the GNG with flying colors, but most do not. Of the current sources, two are not independent of the subject, and one only has trivial mentions. My initial search does not reveal any reliable independent sources with significant coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. History.buses.co.uk, which appears to be the most refered-to source, is obviously self published. The only source that is independent comes from the Brighton & Hove city council, but that alone is nowhere near enough to satisfy notability. Ajf773 (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the appropriate section of Brighton & Hove (bus company).-FusionSub (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Sparrow Simpson

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

Nothing in the article suggests notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was a fairly prolific author, and did a lot to improve the library at St Paul's Cathedral. Anna795bc (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of FA Cup broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is a Twitter post; and the rest are merely announcements, some are WP:PRIMARY. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and England. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet WP:LISTN. If sources are found to prove this meets WP:LISTN, please ping. Conyo14 (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Spackman

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

Fails notability guidelines and has no significant coverage. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think I have added sufficient refs to bring this up to notable. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Towler-Green

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and United Kingdom. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Rogers

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. within the past few days) and fails to address WP:GNG in his nominations. Regardless, 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate. JTtheOG (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: You're the one who de-prodded all of my nominations, so you don't get to complain now that they're at AFD, which is where nominations go when the PROD has been removed. Add to that your bad faith aspersions. A disagreement as to what qualifies as "significant coverage" is not evidence of bypassing anything. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Timmins

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, England, and Australia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skye Lucia Degruttola

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

Non notable actress, Fails NACTOR and GNG - Her role in Grantchester is only recurring and unfortunately I've not found anything substantial online (all are one-bit mentions), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Henry Mason Smith

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

Not notable. Delete or Redirect to Edwin Smith (rower). TheSwamphen (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. TheSwamphen (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Fashion, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hillfields

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

No evidence of meeting any criterion under WP:NMUSIC or of meeting GNG. Available sources are mostly self-published or trivial mentions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:139.184.129.181 placed the following text incorrectly under my nomination: "Wikipedia states however that " Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion." From me: This is not a nomination for speedy deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only coverage I can find is the single paragraph live review in Drowned In Sound (referenced in the article). No RS reviews of any of their releases that I can find. Doesn't meet WP:BAND. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bit of a shame you can't seem to read the Spanish articles included in the reference sections, where it states clearly the notability of the LP release in the context of the time it was released. It can't be all about charts and fame, this page is about rescuing music. If renowned DJ like Gideon Coe plays their music on BBC Radio 2 and BBC Radio 6, I'd assume it is a relevant artist.

Keanu Apperley

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

English-born Italian-New Zealander rugby player that fails WP:GNG. All I found were routine transactional announcements like 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, Italy, England, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of coverage, but I don't think any of it is sufficient enough to suggest a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Britain Group

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

Currently fails WP:CORP as none of the existing references constitute significant independent coverage of the company. Uhooep (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dale Vince and add a mention to the article there. It doesn't currently mention this or Ecojet, but I'm sure a sentence or two can be added mentioning both. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puddingstone Distillery

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

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient significant independent coverage. Uhooep (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Beg

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

So at first glance, this BLP looks legit but upon but digging deeper, I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows or movies as required per WP:ACTOR. Also, when I tried to find more about the subject per WP:BEFORE, I didn't come across enough coverage to meet WP:GNG either. Plus, it's worth noting that this BLP was created back in 2021 by a SPA Sahgalji (talk · contribs) and has been mostly edited by UPEs so there's COI issues as well. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1911 UIAFA European Football Tournament squads

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

List of squads involved in 1911 UIAFA European Football Tournament.

Unneeded CFORK, this could easily and more appropriately be included in the main article (much of it already is).

Fails NLIST, there is no indication this has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources

This does not need a stand alone list. // Timothy :: talk 16:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Czech Republic, France, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Bartlett (racing driver)

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

Notability not demonstrated. I find a couple of passing references to Bartlett in reliable sources, but nothing substantial. See discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#John_Bartlett_(racing_driver) Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:NMOTORSPORT. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though WSCC and IMSA are not explicitly listed in WP:NMOTORSPORT they are "significant international motorsport series" (as mentioned in the second bullet point). NuIotaChi (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sportspeople, Motorsport, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage about being jailed: [28]. Also [29]. Feels like there should be more coverage... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My name is John Bartlett (the John Bartlett you are discussing). I have just been alerted to this situation. I'm not very internet savvy so not sure if I'm supposed to even comment but have been directed to this discussion.

Having now viewed the various comments here I thought I should perhaps point out that my actual blog/website already has my medical history published (including the MRI scans somebody mentioned, which in fact have my name on the top of the scan, albeit very small). The MRI scan on my website site is bigger so it's easier to see my name.

Re the other "John Bartlett" someone referred to as owning a US hockey team (I think). That person bears no relation to me, so is clearly a different John Bartlett! I therefore have no idea if what is being said about him owning a hockey team in the US is correct or not.

I spent most of my racing career in the world sports car championship/world endurance championship, generally considered (at the time) to be one tier below F1. My blog also has a lot of my career facts/history/documents etc. Most of my former racing history is in paper form in book/reference books (such as the various Official Le Mans Yearbooks) etc.

As to the person questioning something about my company, Maidstone Scuba, if you look at the 'Meet our team of PADI instructors' on the website, you'll see I am still the Director of Maidstone Scuba School, althow I have just seen that I am shown as being 61, which is incorrect.

Because what happened to me back in 1993/4, I have always freely publish (albeit with helpers) everything. Therefore everything mentioned about me is already in the public domain and therefore their is no breach of any copyright.

I'm now almost 70, and anything internet is usually handled for me by various very kind 'helpers'.

I'm not a lot of good at any of this internet stuff but can be contacted by old-fashioned phone (Redacted). I attempted to add my email address but it wont allow me to do that! Their is a messaging system on Maidstone Scuba so you can contact me on that if needed. if I can assist any further.

John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@77.101.199.59: Hi John. Do you know whether you have been covered in-depth in independent sources? E.g. stories focusing about you in newspapers, racing magazines, etc.? If so, let us know and that could be able to rescue the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there will be lots of stuff but I'd have to search through boxes and I'm about to leave tomorrow for Birmingham for a protest outside the offices of the CCRC on Friday (we're hoping it might hit the headlines)!

I do remember putting a Post of a German magazine on my Facebook page a few years ago (probably 2014/15) that did a feature of some sort about me but I have no idea what it said, as it was all in German, but it did have various photos of my Team. I have enough trouble with english as I'm very dyslexic!

I will defiantly have Le Mans year books for 84/85/86/87 (the years we ran) but I'll have to find them, probably in the roof!

I do know Penthouse Magazine (who were sponsoring us that year) ran a full a 2 page article on us in 1987. I suspect it was published in the July or Aug edition, as Le Mans would have been June. I'll see if I can at least find the German article for a start but it probably won't be until I get back. Thanks, John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That should have been "definitely", not defiantly!!!

Anyway, I've found it, but still no idea what it says. It was 'RTL GP magazine' and I put it on my facebook page on 3rd Feb 2015. On the front cover it mentions Features on Lamborghini, De Tomaso and Bardon, a car we ran in 85/86/87 in WSPC. The Bardon was the Group C car I developed in 1996. The name was a mix of BAR (me) and DON (Robin Donovan). Robin was one of my regular co-drivers and is listed on Wikipedia.

I have just re posted the magazine on my Facebook page as a memory.

Hope this helps but I'm going to be away until next week now (longer if I'm arrested)!

John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the message below to BeanieFan11 last night but I don't know if you also got to see that message? I will now be away until next week but I have added my direct contact info below. John

My name is John Bartlett (the John Bartlett you are discussing). I have just been alerted to this situation. I'm not very internet savvy so not sure if I'm supposed to even comment but have been directed to this discussion.

Having now viewed the various comments here I thought I should perhaps point out that my actual blog/website already has my medical history published (including the MRI scans somebody mentioned, which in fact have my name on the top of the scan, albeit very small). The MRI scan on my website site is bigger so it's easier to see my name.

Re the other "John Bartlett" someone referred to as owning a US hockey team (I think). That person bears no relation to me, so is clearly a different John Bartlett! I therefore have no idea if what is being said about him owning a hockey team in the US is correct or not.

I spent most of my racing career in the world sports car championship/world endurance championship, generally considered (at the time) to be one tier below F1. My blog also has a lot of my career facts/history/documents etc. Most of my former racing history is in paper form in book/reference books (such as the various Official Le Mans Yearbooks) etc.

As to the person questioning something about my company, Maidstone Scuba, if you look at the 'Meet our team of PADI instructors' on the website, you'll see I am still the Director of Maidstone Scuba School, althow I have just seen that I am shown as being 61, which is incorrect.

Because what happened to me back in 1993/4, I have always freely publish (albeit with helpers) everything. Therefore everything mentioned about me is already in the public domain and therefore their is no breach of any copyright.

I'm now almost 70, and anything internet is usually handled for me by various very kind 'helpers'.

I'm not a lot of good at any of this internet stuff but can be contacted by old-fashioned phone ([REDACTED]). I attempted to add my email address but it wont allow me to do that! Their is a messaging system on Maidstone Scuba so you can contact me on that if needed. if I can assist any further.

John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read your message. I'll see if I look into the German article / Facebook post soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retro (DJ)

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

No sign of notability, searching for this guy returns basically nothing, and the three sources hardly qualify for WP:GNG (one of them is a YouTube video). Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Music, and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that this fails GNG. I've only been able to find three mentions other than his own site.^[1]^[2]^[3] None are significant coverage. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Batte, Elliott. "Dappy Unveils 'Good Intentions' Video - Watch Now - Stereoboard". Stereoboard.com. Retrieved 2024-05-08.
^ "RIO's not so Unpredictable future". 2010-08-03. Retrieved 2024-05-08.
^ "Dappy debuts new single 'Come With Me'". Digital Spy. 2012-06-27. Retrieved 2024-05-08.

Brad Moules

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

Redirect to List of Wakefield Trinity players. Poorly sourced rugby BLP. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT as all I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Two seasons (one at top) isn't a notable career.Mn1548 (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Nanetti

AfDs for this article:

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

This footballer, who seems to have never played in the top 3 tiers in Italy or top 4 tiers in England, was deemed non-notable in an AfD discussion in 2020. I can't find signicant coverage in reliable sources published since then that would suggest he is now notable – per WP:GNG, as WP:NFOOTBALL is obsolete. The article content is not the same as the version deleted in 2020, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. ^Complex/_Rational 17:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] among many more English and Italian sources. Clearly siginifciant figure in English lower league football with extnsive career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of these sources, The Sun and Daily Mail are not considered reliable (deprecated, as documented at WP:RS/PS), and several others are blogs/tabloids which have similar shortcomings. Is there anything in more reputed sources such as BBC, Sky News, The Guardian, etc.? ^Complex/_Rational 20:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. seems okay, but not sure it's WP:SIGCOV, 2. per WP:THESUN, The Sun is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability, 3. very short, mostly quotes 4. short, mostly quotes, 5. a Wordpress blog – is the author a "subject-matter expert"?, 6. very short, mostly quotes, 7. short, mostly quotes, 8. one sentence mentions him, 9. per WP:DAILYMAIL, The Daily Mail is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability. So, of the nine sources you listed, one might be SIGCOV. Based on these sources alone, I don't see that Nannetti's a clearly significiant figure in English lower league football. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per @Das osmnezz. Svartner (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article fail WP:SIRS, and the sources listed above none are independent significal coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Thorpe Priestley

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years, never ref'd correctly. May pass WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creep^Talk 09:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EMR Regional

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

I can't see that there's any coverage of this line of services that is distinct from East Midlands Railway, nor do I think this is a good candidate for a WP:CFORK. The only additional content that exists here is a WP:DIRECTORY of every route this provider operates on. BrigadierG (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and United Kingdom. BrigadierG (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage of EMR Regional relates to its plans to refurbish its rolling stock, which seems to be smaller and older than that used by EMR Intercity. I found several references for refurbishment and added them to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the main scope of the page is to describe the routes its operating on. Because An article that is only about refurbishments of something is almost never allowed and can be placed on the relevant part of the article instead. Plus it is not titled refurbishment of the EMR fleet. It seems as though EMR are either brand new trains (class 810, due to enter within 12 months), sourcing newer trains (class 170, built 1998-2005) or in the process of refurbishment after it withdrew its HSTs, 153s, 156s and even the 180s. JuniperChill (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not only that, but please also note WP:REFBOMB. No more than three sources per sentence, plus I am not sure about the reliability of these sources. JuniperChill (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> Actually, the main scope of the page is to describe the routes its operating on.

Have you been familiar with the discourse surrounding similar subjects such as lists of airline destinations? I'm really loathe to have more of these kinds of big piles of information on Wikipedia without further context? There's moderate consensus (albeit several years old) that these things are generally not good bases for articles. BrigadierG (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are just reprints of press releases - replacing some of your trains is just a normal run-of-the-mill activity when you operate a train line. I'm not contesting that the operator itself is notable, just the idea that its two train services need separate articles of their own. See WP:ROTM BrigadierG (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Selective merge to East Midlands Railway. This article is little more than a timetable at present without any justification for being split from the East Midlands Railway article. Eastmain refbombing with press releases actually makes me more convinced this isn't a notable topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alley of the Dolls (band)

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

Newly created article, PROD declined. Sourcing does not establish WP:GNG being met. WP:BEFORE brings up only a couple of brief reviews of their EP. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to add additional citations to the EP as many exist MusicForeverYours (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added citations to additional reviews, more are available but not always in English as the band has a lot of support in none English speaking countries so reviews are not in English as is requested by Wikipedia. MusicForeverYours (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Kirsh

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

Lacks significant independent coverage. The New York Times wedding announcement is not independent -- these are user-submitted [39] (and in terms of selection versus decline, this was obviously accepted due to his father being a billionaire, not any notability of the young people); besides being non-independent the announcement contains only two substantive sentences about Philip. The condo-purchase (with sibling) report in NYC real-estate magazine The Real Deal has only half a sentence of encyclopedically noteworthy substantive info about Philip. The Swazi Observer citation (PressReader.com) added by an IP ([40]) is permanently dead, and I can find no coverage relevant to the claim except one passing mention. The Bloomberg stock profile link is permanently dead, and Ki Corporation is his father's holding company.

In an attempt to improve the article, I googled the subject's name in various ways and with various keywords, and found only passing mentions regarding two failed restaurants he co-owned which lasted barely a year. Persingo (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further information: After coming across a Wikipedia mirror of his father's wiki article that said Philip was formerly married to Rona Gluck, I looked into this further. I found that Philip's first wife Rona has been remarried to Fred Davis since at least early 2013: [41], and since 2014/2015 Kirsh has been remarried to Monette de Botton [42] [43] [44]. So the information on the wedding officiant and location is irrelevant/outdated, and the infobox is incorrect. Persingo (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, South Africa, England, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Sanclimenti

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

Not meeting WP:NACTOR. Not enough coverage to establish the notability. - The9Man ^(Talk) 11:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 11:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ekin-Su Cülcüloğlu - both of his notable TV appearences featured them as a couple. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caps (rapper)

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

No indication of notability. Looked for sources and found none (though that might be muddled by the simple name). —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 14:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 14:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gsearch hits on social media, then goes off into nothingness. Very much not notable, no charted singles, no awards won, no coverage in RS, nothing found for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Wikishovel (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only external links used as sources here and no sign of notability. @T.C.G. [talk] 16:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: And beyond the cogent arguments above, this twenty word sub-stub is the next thing to worthless. "His work combines elements of classic hip-hop with new beats." Meaning what, exactly? If this had been submitted as a draft, I'd reject it until and unless the creator could actually put down some well attested facts. Wikipedia isn't waste paper. Ravenswing 02:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What we see now is the result of cleanup by Wikishovel after foundational promotional copyvio by the article creator, from whose ANI discussion I found this AfD. Wikishovel, thanks for your efforts, but I think it was not worth your time to try to clean it up. It's no longer promotional and copied, but it doesn't provide any evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few minutes' work, thanks. I wouldn't have bothered if it were longer. Wikishovel (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sign of notability and no reliable sourcing. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 07:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kenny (rugby league)

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT as I am unable to find anything more than routine transactional announcements (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided: Large scope for expansion, but not enough coverage to warrant keeping article in current state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mn1548 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Holker

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were transactional announcements (1, 2, 3) and this confirms he was out of the sport by 2016. JTtheOG (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided: Should be expanded as a Super League player, but if refererences can't be found then there is insufficient coverage to keep the article. Mn1548 (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll be a little blunt here but "neutral" or "undecided" comments don't help closers come to a closure decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Rahim Khan

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

At first glance, this appears to be a legit BLP - however, upon closer examination of each referenced source, it becomes evident that they merely mention the subject without providing sig./in-depth coverage. Consequently, the subject fails to meet the criteria outlined in both WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Television, Law, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is not described as journalist and should not be measured in WP:JOURNALIST.

Subject is described as a lawyer and falls under Notability of attorneys guildeline provided in Wikipedia:Notability (law), which says 3-4 factors are sufficent. Subject meets more than that. From the guideline:

"To be a notable attorney, a person must have notable accomplishments as an attorney, backed up by references that are reliable. These accomplishments include:

trying a notable case, which has its own article in Wikipedia

3 cases are on wiki

being recognized as an expert in a specialized area of law (see Mark Zaid and John S. Lowe)

NPOV reliable sources, Al Jazeera etc mention he is constitutional expert, coverage in The Economist on SC constitutional cases

service as a law clerk at SCOTUS or having clerked for another famous judge.

Clerked for Chief Justice/famous judge

service in an administrative capacity in a major court system agency (example, clerk of a Federal court, chief court administrator).

Clerk at Lahore high court, which in US terms is a federal court

service as a general counsel of a large state or federal agency (example, secretary of state or transportation authority).

Attorney General office Pakistan

Also partially meets

teaching at an accredited college or law school, as a chairman or tenured associate or full professor (preferably a distinguished professor per WP:PROF)"

The BLP is well-sourced, contains no OR, Maintains a NPOV. Also in WP:GNG at least two referenced sources are in-depth with sig coverage and most are not in passing, with consistent coverage in the news over many years. Retinscn20 (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC) — Retinscn20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You're not referencing a policy but a personal essay. How about I create a essay too outlining the criteria of WP:YOUTUBER, stating that one must have at least 100,000 subscribers to qualify for a WP BLP? I fear we'd end up with at least 300,000 new BLPs in just one day. And please refrain from misleading. The BLP lacks proper sourcing, contains WP:OR and in fact is WP:PROMO. You've to provide the references, which discuss the subject in depth as required by WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect I did not call it a policy. I called it a guideline. I am not misleading the discussion by pointing out that you have put this under WP:JOURNALIST, which the subject is not. You have not responded to this. We can have this discussion without being personal as WP:GD says.

Your point is understood that the guideline is not considered policy. It is still however a reasonable understanding of notability for attorneys, not journalists. If you would like to keep this to WP:GNG, that states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Significant coverage has been stated in independent sources directly discussing the subject here ^[1] here ^[2] here ^[3]. And more than a trivial mention has been included in leading publications Al Jazeera, Economist, Dawn. If not, rather than deleting it immediately, article can be improved to address concerns you have, which you said fits BLP criteria at first glance. Cheers. Retinscn20 (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.jantakareporter.com/entertainment/for-the-sake-of-peace-between-our-two-countries-may-your-channel-die-a-quick-death-pakistani-lawyer-turns-down-arnab-goswamis-invitation/292457/
^ https://web.archive.org/web/20231105140841/https://minutemirror.com.pk/secretary-summoned-over-lg-officials-term-completion-plea/
^ https://tribune.com.pk/story/819315/saving-the-turf-the-controversy-of-the-21st-amendment here

Fry, this isn't a guideline either. It's simply a personal essay as I stated previously. So, if you intend to assess this based on WP:GNG, I'm disappointed to inform you that the first two sources (this and this) are not acceptable as they are not considered WP:RS. Even the Tribune piece is just a column, lacking sig/in-depth coverage on the subject. Hence, it clearly fails to meet WP:GNG and doesn't even come close to passing WP:N. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Working lawyer that practices in a high court, but still nothing for notability. Sourcing is either about the cases where this person is mentioned in passing, or written by the subject. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. 103.151.0.166 (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Blackham

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously survived AfD when criteria was less strict for his 'client list', however notability is not inherited and I don't see much individual notability for this mastering engineer. Additionally the article has been edited multiple times by the subject which is a conflict of interest. InDimensional (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and England. InDimensional (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP. Fails GNG and NBIO. The sources do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found nothing that meets SIRS from independent non-promotional sources addressing the subject indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 08:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am still alive and well, so why should my page be deleted. My page explains my career and life. Nothing wrong with that.

Unzela Khan

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

It appears the subject doesn't meet the WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR, as their works don't seem noteworthy enough. The press coverage in WP:RS also not significant or in depth enough, so fails to meet WP:GNG. Does not satisfy WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Pakistan, and United Kingdom. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is not noteworthy.

Crosji (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or better to be moved to the draft Kotebeet (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with the nominator. A British Muslim Awards recipient is already qualified for a Wikipedia entry per WP:ANYBIO and from the article was cited to a reliable source per WP:RS. Also, as a journalist of a notable newspaper or TV which she was for Huffpost give us assurance of passing WP:JOURNALIST. She also wrote a book which is notable enough to qualify WP:NAUTHOR. What's then needed for an article? Not being braid doesn't mean it came be a standalone article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @Saqib, @Crosji, and @Kotebeet for the argument per se. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I so saw so may PR but was able to get reliable ones. See here and here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, I'm curious about how she meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria simply for working at Huffpost. The policy doesn't say anything like this. Additionally, is writing just one book sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One book which is reviewed by reliable sources is considered as notable. But may not require a article. However, we usually have problem when journalists wrote about others as few or less writing about them, in other way, winning an award for such excellence in media is part of both ANYBIO and JOURNALISM. While these are additional criteria, the article generally meets our general notability guidelines where being cited to reliable sources, verifiable and significantly covered per WP:SIGCOV. Even as there isn't any fact for such, a redirect should have served better not only when she won a major award and a book mistake reviewed. Let's be truthful herein and ignore certain additional essays. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because the article raises concerns regarding its credibility due to several factors: 1) Excessive Referencing: With only six sentences, the presence of ten references seems disproportionate. This abundance of citations may suggest an attempt to over-validate the content rather than provide genuine support for the points made. 2) Questionable Contributor: The primary contributor, "User:Kotebeet," [contributed approximately 80% of the content], is no longer active on the platform. This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor.--Crosji (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crosji, you are wrong here. I disagree that an AFD process requires the author except in major cases like undisclosed WP:UPE or thereabout. I am asking you do look at the article by our process of inclusion; WP:GNG. If you have any issue with the creator, then face them. I can't find any argument you're making besides you vote says "not noteworthy". Meaning? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crosji, also there is no issue of WP:REFBOMB here. I don't seem to understand your statement This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor, when a creator doesn't require anything on whether to delete an article or keep them. However, this is a process and you can't vote twice. Do remove any of the votes. Thanks! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Rutter

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

Article on a British man killed fighting in Syria. Seems completely non notable, was only reported in the news because he died. A sad event, but not one that makes him notable. No sustained coverage of him since this either, all sources seem to be directly after his death/repatriation in 2017. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Events, Military, Syria, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Chord Company

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NMUSIC. Coverage is mostly centered around the British Association of Barbershop Singers. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to British Association of Barbershop Singers: per WP:ATD Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with that ATD. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bajirao's Konkan Campaign

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

The article is entirely based on original research and the synthesis of multiple events involving various states. It discusses military conflicts labeled as "Bajirao's Konkan Campaign," incorporating entities such as the Siddis, Nizam of Hyderabad, the British East India Company, and the Portuguese Empire. However, no reliable sources consider all these entities as belligerent allies against the Marathas during Bajirao I's campaign. The creator has conflated conflicts involving Bajirao with those of other kingdoms/states/entities and inserted "Maratha victory" in the infobox, despite the differing outcomes recorded in historical records. It's unclear what the author intended, but the content of the article largely duplicates information already present in numerous parent articles. This attempt seems to glorify an entity through the use of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, combining unrelated conflicts. Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, Portugal, and England. Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:If articles of this kind fall within the scope, we could also maintain an article titled Alexander the Great's Punjab Campaign, alongside Indian campaign of Alexander the Great and Battle of Hydaspes. Ironically, this would involve including both the Achaemenid Empire and the Pauravas in a single infobox!! That would afford everyone an opportunity to express their creativity, but this isn't the appropriate venue for it.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. ✗plicit 14:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meff

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

Falls under WP:NOTDICT - already an entry in Wiktionary. Orphaned page. Orange sticker (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and England. Orange sticker (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yep, not a dictionary, and not enough coverage for WP:WORDISSUBJECT. One or two reliable sources (eg. New Statesman) give a definition alongside coverage of the Paul Nuttall thing, but nothing like "the social or historical significance of the term" as per the policy. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:06, 13 May 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.

RouteNote

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Out of the 9 sources in the article only 4 could have the potential to count towards NCORP, and out of the 4, I am not entirely satisfied with their independence. ([45][46][47][48]). This article appeared for me while doing WP:NPP and I wasn't comfortable accepting it and with the last AfD being no consensus, I thought I'd opt for the AfD route. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup

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

These articles are unnecessary WP:CFORKs from the main article 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup, and are not required. We have never created articles for teams at Cricket World Cups before, as they are wholly unnecessary, and just copying content available on other articles, such as 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup and 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup squads. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, South Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, England, and Australia. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating articles for other countries at this event:

Keep - The following articles would be suitable as in the T20 World Cup, many matches will be played and in these articles, the readers can read the per match summary, team's tournament progression, tournament kit, scorecard, per team statistics and many more of the respective cricket team at a single article, which is not possible to mention at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup article. Any articles which haven't been created earlier doesn't mean it is unnecessary, there should be an article to record any team's particular tournament edition journey. Wowlastic10 (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament summaries should be in the main article anyway, which would cover the important matches and information, so a split out for match summaries for every match including the WP:ROUTINE coverage ones is not required. Tournament kit would be WP:TRIVIA, team statistics sounds like it would violate WP:NOTSTATS/WP:TRIVIA. None of this sounds like encyclopedic content, and just because people create these articles for e.g. IPL teams (which are questionable to do anyway), that doesn't mean they are valid WP:CFORKs for this tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we keep it until first week of T20 World Cup? If you feel it useless then also, then you're free to delete it. What say? Wowlastic10 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be against this, as the onus is to prove that they are valid articles, not keeping in the hope they might be, against any evidence that they'll be anything other than a WP:CFORK with trivia and stats obsessions (like the IPL season articles). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The concept is basically like India at the 2020 Summer Olympics, where pages like India at the Cricket World Cup are split for every edition. This is infact a very important addition to wikipedia and should be made for all teams having played every ICC tournament. Like the IPL teams, county teams; this is a very valuable addition as each page will contain stuff others cant.

I have been working on similar articles in my private space, but havent published them yet as I want to properly finish the thing before publishing.

@Wowlastic10 I would encourage you to make similar articles for all editions of the T20 World Cup. Do remove the words ICC Men’s and make it like India at the 2024 T20 World Cup; following the common name process. Furthermore, include national stats such as viewership, tournament stats of players of that country, pictures, quotes, squad information and match details with some description. Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not rename these as suggested without WP:RM consensus, as the main article is at 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Also this comment doesn't address WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More squad information such as matches played by each person, caps, etc
Proper matchwise description - not there on any other page
More information about reaction of said mactches and tournament in the country
Place to add pictures

Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information on individual players as well. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More squad information such as matches played by each person, caps, etc - can be added to squad article, as has been done for some 50 over World Cup events.

Proper matchwise description - only needed for notable matches, not those with routine coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a fandom site.

Reactions are mostly trivial and unencyclopedic, and any events/reactions that are actually important can go in the main article.

Lots of pictures violates WP:NOTGALLERY

So none of these are a good reason to create these WP:CFORKs. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup I agree with the nom. I don't see these as being necessary as content for these forks will just be re-hashed details for the main article, and then lists and stats that violate WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS as they will just be random indiscriminate. If a particular team has a 'special' tournament, or gains significant coverage for another reason, then perhaps a fork can then be made, but one for each team is unnecessary, and the comparison to the Olympic articles doesn't wash given how much bigger an event (with loads more events and athletes) than a cricket tournament. We don't have forks for Football World Cup articles for example. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia, and these lists provide extra information about the playing nation than the main article. Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per @Wowlastic10, this can be more than a list, and it warrants an article for each country. If the article does not have unique info it can be merged back. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I'm saying, thanks for explaining it on my behalf. Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia- true, but putting information into various sub articles so people can add stats trivia isn't the best way of displaying it. We have an article on the events and squad articles, and those are the main 2 things about each team anyway. WP:CFORKs are still not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I can see these becoming unnecessary, poor quality, content forks consisting of minimal prose and just scorecards... nothing which can't be included in the main tournament article. AA (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let this discussion end, i'll again start including all the necessary details Wowlastic10 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont mean to bludgeon, but this has high chances of not ending up as a mere stub; per my reasons stated above. Each ipl team gets an annual page for its tournaments, as do the english county teams. This will only broaden and improve wikipedia's scope on the matter, considering the quality of cricket articles on here is way down compared to other sports. Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE, just because other events like the IPL get articles like this every year (which I don't agree with anyway), that doesn't mean these should too. Nobody so far has demonstrated why this isn't an unnecessary WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many times a player has played in the tournament - how many matches a swuad member played

top 5 batting and bowling averages in the team etc

catches and dismissals

reaction / outrage / media coverage of tournament and team in said country

prizes and awards won by players for performance in tourney

explicit knockout stage performances

I respect your opinion wholeheartedly, but ipl and county teams have existed for long, with some of them featured and good articles. This is an opportunity for editors, who will add more valuable info and like i said, simply broaden wikipedia’s scope. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of these things are encyclopedic enough, and no article with them will be a GA or FA if the process for GA or FA is applied properly. County teams don't have season articles and most IPL teams have tables and no prose, which is what these articles are and likely will always be. This is an encyclopedia and not a fandom site. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's easy for a visitor to get all the details about their desired team at one place. I'd say we keep the Teamwise articles and should nominate the Squads article for deletion. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
If the squads article isn't there, and all the fixtures are instead transcluded from the main page; it won't be a WP:CFORK. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:ILIKEIT. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not what I like, it's a suggestion to improve these articles. Vestrian24Bio (U, T, A, C, S) 07:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Squad articles are a cricket standard for these events, and can be expanded easily. These country articles are not standard or needed, swapping one squad article for loads of country articles is not a good solution. Just because it's the sort of thing WP:IPL would do, that doesn't mean other cricket tournament articles should do that. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty much the point. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a deletion discussion about squad articles, that would need a separate consensus (and nominating right now would just further muddy the waters). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Per nom. Needless forking. RangersRus (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Divided Loyalties (novel)

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

Fails WP:NBOOK No WP:SIGCOV Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and England. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Past_Doctor_Adventures#List_of_Past_Doctor_Adventures as an alternative to deletion. I found a lot of fan reviews online, including some fun old 1999 listservs, which makes me want someone to write an article about it as one of the worst Doctor Who novels of all time... but I found no RS at all for NBOOK. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively and redirect to Past_Doctor_Adventures#List of Past Doctor Adventures as WP:Alternative to deletion to preserve the content as history, until someone can show sources to establish notability. The target could benefit by preserving a condensed plot summary. This web article, while only a briefly mentioning the topic, could be used as a secondary source for the appearances of the Fifth Doctor and the Toymaker in the novel. Daranios (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Death (Doctor Who novel)

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. One of the sources is WP:USERGEN and the other no longer exists. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and England. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively and redirect to Past Doctor Adventures#List of Past Doctor Adventures as WP:Alternative to deletion to preserve the content as history, until someone can show sources to establish notability. The target could benefit by preserving a condensed plot summary. Daranios (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M Group Services

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

M&A activity appears to be pretty much the totality of the available sourcing, and that is excluded from establishing notability per WP:ORGTRIV. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ONS built-up areas in England by population

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Social science, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed on the talk page, this list relies on a single WP:PRIMARY source and has multiple WP:SYNTH issues. It is a poor summary of the primary source [UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) release] because it lacks the extensive contextualisation included in that source. In the absence of any secondary sources, it adds nothing to the original source. In terms of encyclopedic value, it is of dubious merit because the nomenclature chosen by the ONS conflicts with common usage and thus requires qualification by a complete list of included and excluded wards/parishes – which it doesn't have as that would require even more SYNTH violations.

The only alternative to outright deletion that I can see is to park it in draft space until the ONS produces its statistics by agglomeration (conurbation). There is a reason why no secondary sources have bothered to respond to this release of statistics: it is not useful. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would like to point out List of urban areas in the United Kingdom,

ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom and multiple county by population articles should fall in the same category if the decision is to delete the article. If the ONS are releasing agglomerations (which is highly unlikely) these are would go on to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom unless both are (understandably to to me) merged if they do. JMF maybe you should have put the second paragraph in a separate reply with delete in bold as the first one paragraph sets the discussion and the second is your opinion and it would make it easier to skim down the bold to know which action or inaction is taken. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there consensus on which list the the 'definitive' one? Would it be possible to merge all the different place types into one page or even one table? The way population in the UK is broken down seems really inconsistent which know this has been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. I added a comment on Talk:Birkenhead built-up area last week when I came across it because I feel the article's very existence does the opposite of adding to the sum of human knowledge. To stay on topic: the reason I ask is I would agree with the deletion of this page (and others) depending on page would remain. Orange sticker (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the problem in a nutshell. Political boundaries (civil parishes, UAs etc.) are well defined but subject to sudden changes. Settlement boundaries are not well defined and are subject to 'creep' and merge. Political boundaries don't catch up, so you get nonsense like large parts of Reading that are excluded because they were built across the local authority line. Ditto Cambridge and Luton/Dunstable. Birkenhead (indeed the Wirral in total) is nothing like what it was 100 years ago, yet some people try very hard to insist that places that have merged are still distinct because they can't cope with the concept of a polycentric settlement, or can't accept that their "village" has become a suburb. So without a single undisputed definition of a settlement, we will never have a single undisputed list of settlements and (IMO at least) it is counterproductive and misleading to pretend otherwise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC) revised 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We often keep lists of populated places as published by reliable government sources. I don't see the SYNTH issue, any contextualisation can be edited into the article, and not useful is an argument to avoid as it's in the eye of the beholder. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider it sensible to have a list that includes no part of Greater London whatever, doesn't recognise Greater Manchester, includes Solihull in "Birmingham", omits Caversham, Reading from "Reading" and Bletchley from "Milton Keynes"? In fact a list that has to qualify many name places to explain what they include and (prospectively) what they don't include. How is that useful? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The London region is a approximately a 5th of the UKs population and rough the same population as all the other nations combined so yes the ONS don’t record the areas BUAs like Scotland and Northern Ireland (it did for Wales).

Greater Manchester is a combined authority and county not a 2021BUA. Solihull is separate (number 63) to Birmingham. Chocolateediter (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is based on ONS data, excluding the Greater London and Manchester. It is not aligned to either geographical or political areas (example:Castle Point is split on this list is split into Canvey, Thundersley and South Benfleet but no mention of Hadleigh). It does even meet postal or phone code areas. So how useful is this to readers? Zero.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is what it is, a reproduction of ONS data, which is what it says it is, it's not our job to second guess or judge whether the ONS have got things right or not, merely to report it, which is what the article does. G-13114 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Fails the general notability guideline - not presumed a notable subject by significant coverage in reliable sources, and has a sole significant source, being a primary source only and not independent of the subject - the ONS itself. Not justified under the notability criteria for a stand-alone list, with no indication that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Lacks encyclopedic value, being an abstruse segmentation of census data with such startling omissions and variable relationship to settlements as to be misleading. As to our job, it is not Wikipedia's job to reproduce, mirror or regurgitate ONS datasets as standalone lists. NebY (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep while the definition ONS uses is arguably primary its a secondary source for the places themselves and although there are many sources for places in England they will often have different definitions for different places/sources while this one is consistent for England even if the definition recently changed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's one of the few ONS geographic measures that captures unparished areas, which many towns are. Furthermore, the larger urban areas are subdivided into recognised cartographic areas by the UK's national mapping organisation, just because it doesn't match an administrative boundary (which is invisible on the ground anyway) doesn't mean it isn't valid. It's to give a snapshot of areas for very high level purposes, population stats of course don't remain static but it presents a reasonable idea of areas to readers. The Equalizer (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two distinct issues here.

On the one hand, we have the original ONS data release, which is a 100% WP:RS for the purposes you describe. It is not perfect in some details (what is?) but by looking closely at the mapping, the individual data lines and the covering narrative, a sensible list can be drawn up. Which is exactly what a secondary source, CityPopulation.de, has done here. They have managed to produce a sensible, credible list.
On the other hand, we have this article, which amplifies the errors in the ONS report. (It is not for nothing that the ONS have declared that henceforth they will leave physical geography to the experts at the Ordnance Survey).

Your objective is entirely satisfied by the original data source: you haven't explained what value this article has added. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really unsure as to why citypopulation.de would be more reliable than actual census numbers. SportingFlyer T·C 17:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article has all the same problems as the deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of localities in England by population. Its pretty much just a copy of it with updated data given a different name. Eopsid (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The objective of this article is, I assume, to present a meaningful, ordered table of population figures for named towns and cities in England (as in this article's original title) — something not provided by the data source, an ONS Excel spreadsheet; hence, there could be added value. However, the omission of Greater London sorely compromises this, because to the average reader it's likely seen as nonsensical. If there's a possibility we can fathom out a way round this shortcoming, I'd be looking to revise and keep, if we cannot, delete. The article can also serve as a navigational list to settlement articles and readers may want to use population as a means for selection; this does not necessarily require the notability of a standalone list. Rupples (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(2nd attempt at reply after losing last one due to a computer error creating human error grrrr)

What about using inner and outer London statistics from the "Population and household estimates, England and Wales: Census 2021" dataset[49] as they don’t fit in the district, county or regional list articles and don’t seem to have much municipal function. This could be in a section of its own above major and maybe also the key table with a little explainer. Both inner and outer London have populations above Birmingham so come in nicely above it.

Could add a second column with citypopulation.de statistics[50] if more than one source/viewpoint (since the site cites the ONS) is what some would like to have. Chocolateediter (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume most of the ONS BUA definitions do conform to what we regard as towns and cities, else there's a problem retaining the population figures in England settlement article infoboxes. Don't see why London Region can't be used [51] and London included — its the combined population of the London boroughs, which I suggest is the definition most people, at least in the UK, would associate as being London. The only other notes within the article where explanation seems to be required are Milton Keynes and Manchester. Are there others? "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind. No one seems to be challenging List of built-up areas in Wales by population. Readers will rightly wonder why we don't have an equivalent for England, should this be deleted. Rupples (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could easily explain why London is excluded from the data set, and include it maybe as a sub-heading, but I can't quickly find why it's excluded in a search, and in any case it's an editing problem, not a notability problem. SportingFlyer T·C 05:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but all those suggestions sound like WP:SYNTH to me. In regards to the List of built-up areas in Wales by population it has a lot of problems it uses two different definitions of built-up area because the ONS confusingly decided to use the same name for a different concept in the 2021 census. Eopsid (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Manchester note wasn’t really needed, It was only added it to prove a point with the Milton Keynes one as two users had problems with Bletchley being separate from Milton Keynes which it had also been separate for the 2011 census.

The explanation given by the ONS is:

"For the remainder of our analysis, we have removed London's 33 BUAs. This is because in Greater London, the method to identify BUAs does not recognise individual settlements in the same way. It instead provides data by London borough boundaries."

Which the ONS did pretty much do in 2011 and it went against analysis that the other areas had, they could have done some analysis though and I guess they might at a later date in a separate report. Chocolateediter (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is not a criticism of the ONS. It is a proposal to delete a list that is a poor summary of the ONS list, reinforcing its errors and failing to reproduce its many caveats. (At least the ONS has some awareness of its weaknesses and inconsistencies.) It adds no value to the ONS list, it subtracts from it. We are not helping readers; if we can't do better than this then we must back away and refer readers to the source.

The best secondary source available is CityPopulation.de but that option has been rejected. They at least treat Luton/Dunstable, Bournemouth/Poole and Brighton/Hove as physically contiguous units: the ONS claims to ignore administrative boundaries but has not consistently done so. CityPopulation also ignores the ONS's sloppy toponymy (carving chunks out of places like Reading and Milton Keynes, then applying to the remainder the name of the whole) to give a sensible population report for the English cities. CityPopulation digests and makes sense of the raw ONS report; this article merely reinforces its confusions.

The only way out of this mess that I can see is to prefer the CityPopulation data. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perception to state the ONS have made errors, not a fact. Neither the ONS data or CityPopulation figures will likely see agreement between interested editors for every one of their definitions, because neither set is produced to fit Wikipedia articles. The only set of population figures where there's probably no disagreement is for council area's with defined boundaries. Take Milton Keynes, which started the 'dispute' about this article, the 'best fit' figure for the population of Milton Keynes could have been the Milton Keynes BUA or the total of the Milton Keynes and Bletchley BUAs, but the editors of that article saw fit to define Milton Keynes as its larger urban area, so it's valid to include the agglomerated population. Luton has not been defined as 'Luton urban area including Dunstable and Houghton Regis' so it is not appropriate to link an agglomerated population figure to that article. Rupples (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the ONS uses the name of the whole as the name of a part, as it has done in the case of (at least) Milton Keynes and Reading, then that is an error. But that is why we don't use primary sources as it usually needs a secondary source to take the long view, as CityPopulation has done.

Again, it is not the purpose of this nomination to denounce the ONS. They remain a highly reliable source of primary data and its analysis. The question is only whether it is valid for Wikipedia to copy their spreadsheet, taking it out of its contextual analysis. Why? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We use primary sources for statistics all the time. Otherwise we wouldn't have any population information anywhere on the site. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY. We cite statistical sources and rightly so. The issue here (and in the other lists that have already been deleted for the same reason) is that it is not legitimate to create an article that is a selective copy of the source. As WP:PRIMARY says 1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
- I believe that editors found the 2011 ONS built-up areas were useful, but that their sub-divisions were arbitrary and hard to understand.
- Many of the 2021 "built-up areas" are similar to the 2011 sub-divisions, and are equally hard to understand.
- For example, the Dunstable built-up area in this list has a population of 34,500, while the Dunstable article gives the population of the parish as 40,699. Readers might think there are 6,199 people living in the rural hinterland of Dunstable. They would be wrong; almost all the area covered by Dunstable Town Council is built-up. A comparison of the maps [52] and [53] shows that the ONS has allocated a large part of eastern Dunstable to the Luton built-up area.
- The list article says "built-up area boundaries are defined and named by the ONS". The ONS documentation is hard to follow. However, it seems that the Ordnance Survey are actually responsible, and their site [54] includes a 2022 "Technical specification" (with a methodology that considers land-use and "the Settlement Named Area dataset" to decide which 25-metre cells to merge together) and a "Release Note" (which says "Using customer feedback, improvements have been made in the [April] 2024 release, by refining the definition of a Built Up Area") but no updated "Technical specification".
- If the list article is retained, it must have a better explanation that mentions ways in which a "built-up area" might differ from what you expect. Ideally this explanation should be based on secondary sources, but I would be content if a mole inside the ONS were to edit the article and explain what is happening.
- The article should also explain about the "Related places" (are they included within or excluded from the area) and tell readers where they can find a map of each area. Perhaps they can be referred to citypoulation.de. The ONS interactive map does not seem to know about built-up areas. JonH (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The places named in the second column of the table in the article were recently dewikilinked to our articles on the related settlements thus nullifying the argument for the article being a navigational aid to finding those articles. AFAIK most England settlement articles use built up area as best available fit for population, so why dewiklink and place a hidden instruction not to wikilink? Granted, there are a few exceptions where BUA is not the best fit, but those instances can and were being noted. It should not have resulted in a 'carte blanche' dewikilinking. Rupples (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the ONS BUA is the same as the settlement described in the article (which it often is not), then to wikilink it is a navigational aid over a precipice. We must not deliberately mislead our readers. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not with this article as such but with the choice of Infobox used in our settlement articles. Liverpool uses Template:Infobox settlement which allows more than one definition of population — two population figures are shown in that article's infobox. Milton Keynes on the other hand uses Template:Infobox UK place which limits population to a single field. Rupples (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The strong consensus at WP:WikiProject UK geography is to prefer and seek to transition to Infobox UK Place when possible. Apart from being more customised to UK political geography, it avoids the clutter and trivia invited by Infobox settlement. If a detail is that significant, it should be in the body. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

York Housing Association

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

York Housing Association no longer exists and it appears that it was only ever one of many housing associations serving the Yorkshire area. It merged in 2022 with Leeds and Yorkshire Housing Association to form 54North - now (May 2024)a subsidiary of Karbon Homes (https://54northhomes.co.uk/about-us/). The page would need completely rewritten - but probably better (if it proved notable) to create a new page based on Karbon Homes. Newhaven lad (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if it has been merged into another association, the references in the article show that it is notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Buckley

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were transactional announcements (1, 2) with a combined five-ish sentences of independent coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided: Sufficient room for expansion, but not enough coverage in current state. Mn1548 (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I was able to find this source, which I think is detailed enough be considered non-trivial, but it's a local media article, so it's pretty borderline. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transactional announcements such as signings and trades are not considered in-depth sourcing, especially when most of it is in quotes. JTtheOG (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Premier League overseas broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, United Kingdom, and England. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Upon a search, I just get WP:PRIMARY sources from NBC, CBC, and tweets announcing who does which games. It's trivia and can be placed into the main broadcasting article. Conyo14 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant information and sources have been added to the article that will help give it more notability. [55], [56], [57], [58]--Claudio Fernag (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTCRUFT still applies, you think an article on some junk list makes a list notable, think again. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Claudio Fernag. Esolo5002 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is well passed here and the sourcing for this list is certainly not in question, while the article is monitored closely to revert any errors or vandalism near immediately. We disqualify outright press releases, but certainly not reliable news sources, and the nominator is advised that they are perfectly acceptable to source a broadcast partner. Nate • (chatter) 18:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are as of now, at least 84 different sources in the article to back up its notability efforts or quota. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but all but 6 are for articles, the rest are excuses to claim WP:RS. This argument is so 2007. Try harder next time. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes there are 84 sources, but not many are actually WP:SIGCOV of Premier League broadcasters, they're just saying "in country X, company Y have a contract for Z years and W money". I don't see any good quality sources e.g. linking overseas broadcasters together in one source (apart from [59], which is one source), which is a suggestion at WP:LISTN for when a list might be notable. This just read like a TV directory. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is the one on broadcasting rights that has the best and most sources, I see no reason to delete it, it is completely encyclopedic.

PIKACHUNESS (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:ILIKEIT. An analysis of the sources would help. Conyo14 (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is very valuable resource about the topic. Regpath (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another WP:ILIKEIT, please provide a policy-based rationale for keeping. Conyo14 (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, WP:ITSUSEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is no longer just an article about a list of broadcasters as it was in the beginning, now a context has been added that gives it notability and verifiable and reliable sources have been added, so the information must be maintained, but maybe in this case what should be done is move this to List of Premier League broadcasters, as it was previously, so that everything is grouped in a single article, both local and international rights.--Edu1388 (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the merge suggested above over deletion. Conyo14 (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here, one editor supporting a Merge but I see no target article mentioned here, just a proposal for a rename. This article has been expanded greatly since its nomination and a review of those newly added sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rosenfeldt

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

Hi; this is my first time both using Twinkle and participating in the AfD process, so try not to flame me too hard if I make a mistake here. This article has somewhat poor sourcing and I've done a check for his name to try and find anything on him but I've come up short. If anyone can find better sources for this, that would be great, but I'm unable to on my end. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and South Africa. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark, Switzerland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing in the article suggests notability per WP:MUSICBIO and I'm unable to find any significant coverage online. InDimensional (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: High ranking in a major TV contest gives notability but I'd suggest that coverage in English will be hard to find Sansbarry (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I found a couple of profile articles about him: in the Danish magazine Familie Journalen [60]; and on TV2 (Denmark) [61]. I don't think being a "semifinalist" on the TV Talent show is particularly impressive -- there are 35 semifinalists each year. But the two articles may be enough to pass WP:GNG. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These seem fine; it's probably the language barrier that makes finding sources harder. If someone's willing to add them in somehow (I can't at this exact moment) then I'd probably be willing to keep the article. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nothing wrong with submitting an AfD and not being 100% sure (I have withdrawn a good few after somebody came up with dece sources). jp×g 🗯️ 01:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Promo interview, fails WP:IS	1. Isbrand, Johan (8 November 2019). "Daniel creates magic in the Circus Building: I have taught myself everything". Familie Journalen.
Brief, but may meet WP:SIGCOV	2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Hansen, Sebastian Myrup (31 March 2018). "Was tapped on the shoulder - two years later he had been all over Denmark". TV 2 (Denmark).
Performance annoucement, fails WP:IS	3. ^ Daniel Rosenfeldt Performing at Skanderborg Festival 2014
Performance annoucement, fails WP:IS	4. ^ "Daniel Rosenfeldt Live at Louisiana". Archived from the original on 2015-05-09. Retrieved 2015-02-24.
Show promo trailer, fails WP:IS	5. ^ Det Stribede Show Trailer
Name mention, fails WP:SIGCOV	6. ^ Hansen, Sebastian Myrup (31 March 2018). "Dansedrenge gik videre til finalen i 'Danmark har talent'". TV2.
Database listing	7. ^ Discogs profile: Daniel Rosenfeldt

Nothing found in BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS. One ref above may meet SIGCOV, but that is not enough to show notability. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To remind you, sourcing level requirement for BLP is more stringent than GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge Cup semi final

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

Apparently I have to use AfD for this: I think this article should be moved to draftspace as it as the potential to be a good article similar to FA Cup semi-finals. However it is currently incomplete, unreferenced, and is not fit for the mainspace. Mn1548 (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby league, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page has been unreferenced since its creation in 2016. It's more likely that, if sent to draft space, it ends up being G13 deleted in 6 months time anyways. I'd prefer the matter of this get addressed here instead of being draftified and deleted in 6 months. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point. Another user has suggested deletion in a previous discussion. My preference is to move article to draft but I'm also not opposed to deletion as article can always be remade at a later date. My main issue with the article currently is not that it is unreferenced but rather is is incomplete in the sense that the list is missing everything from 1898 to 1979. Mn1548 (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Semi finals are not notable enough for a stand-alone article. I PROD'd this a while ago, but it was contested with an WP:OSE argument (i.e. FA Cup semi-finals exists, so this article should too). Even if the article were improved, I'm not convinced it is notable enough to pass WP:LISTN. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this point. While I think this article could be made to the standard of the FA Cup article, the reality is football will always have more coverage than rugby league, so finding enough secondary sources might be problematic for it to pass as a stand alone list. Mn1548 (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. But the nominator is suggesting draftification, is that option acceptable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once again, this AFD needs more participation from editors, weighing in with their assessments of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jormungandr (roller coaster)

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

Probably either delete, or merge to Drayton Manor Resort due to lack of SIGCOV. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks, Entertainment, and England. Owen× ☎ 07:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what kind of improvements would need to be made? Sorry this is my first page so not 100% sure if its ok but tried to mimic layouts and information of other rides. Thanks Maddisongiselle (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Maddisongiselle: The most important thing is finding more coverage of the coaster in reliable published sources. Do you know of stories about Jormungandr (or Buffalo Coaster) in newspapers, books, magazines or other web sources? Toughpigs (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did good work. Please read what @Toughpigs noted. Cleo Cooper (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Draven

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

No significant in-depth coverage. All I could find were passing mentions (more or less like these 1, 2, 3, 4) and Wiki mirrors. Moreover, the article is unreferenced. X (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should not go without consensus, being a crummy unreferenced junk with only an IMDb link. At the very least it should be drafted if not deleted. X (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xoak: We typically do draftify if someone has offered to work on it in the AfD. But if we go ahead with draftification and no one is interested in actually working on the article, then it'll just get WP:CSD G13 deleted in 6 months anyways. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is true that he's not terribly prolific, but he did have a major role in a highly influential film so I think he scrapes by. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holderness museums

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

Unclear what this article is even about. Mentions one small archive, without a claim to notability, shared across the 3 museums that aren't otherwise tied together. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, History, and United Kingdom. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This BBC reference explains the oral history project. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting coincidence that the project officer's name in that link is so similar the article creator. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its a project or scheme to record oral histories. Its not encyclopaedic. I searched and looked for sources but there's nothing I can find. Desertarun (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selectively merge into Hornsea Museum, or vice versa. They are one and the same registered charity. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvan Anderton

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

sportsperson stub. fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Kingdom. ltb d l (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The player appears to have a substantial number of appearances for Reading and Chelsea. I think it's a matter of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. Over 200 appearances in England's professional football league (verified by the Neil Brown source in the article sas well as sources like this), while a quick Google search brings up things like this and this which clearly indicate historical (read: offline) coverage. A lazy nomination. Giant Snowman 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
are those football cards? ltb d l (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...yes? Giant Snowman 07:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
football cards aren't reliable sources ltb d l (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has that ever been decided? I'd think if it were by a reputable company it would be reliable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's crazy ltb d l (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Football cards being reliable sources made me literally laugh out loud. AusLondonder (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't a reputable card company be reliable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
amazing. 10/10. no notes. ltb d l (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At no point have I claimed that football cards are reliable. I was merely suggesting that appearing on football cards - and, if you had bothered to Google him, all the other historical coverage at photo archives etc. - suggests there is coverage out there, which research by others below has supported. Giant Snowman 18:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the amount of games he played and the clubs he played for seems good enough, combined with GS sources above and probably much more WP:OFFLINESOURCES, this needs improvement for sure. Govvy (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than 200 professional appearances for teams with deep, deep histories and legacies. This is very obvious. Clearly notable. Anwegmann (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and lacks SIGCOV. An actual check of the newspapers.com archive finds nothing but mentions in match reports/transfer stories. He went on to play cricket for Bryant Rose Cricket Club and won the raffle four years in a row there but that is trivial stuff. NFOOTBALL has been depreciated since 2022 so any Keeps based on number of games played must be ignored by the closer. He isn't notable either for playing for some "notable" clubs per NOTINHERITED. Dougal18 (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I frequently see editors citing Wikipedia:But there must be sources! in AfDs for footballers with dozens of international caps. I'd like to see the same standard applied to footballers with "over 200 appearances in England's professional football league". How do football cards indicate offline coverage, @GiantSnowman:? As Dougal18 points out so far it has not been demonstrated that SIGCOV exists. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly per Dougal18's reasoning. Footballers are not inherently notable - they need to meet WP:GNG. This is clear community consensus. Simply asserting that an individual played for notable teams is not a suitable AfD argument. If nothing can be found in newspaper archives, then he's not notable. Another point is this is little more than an infobox and a pseudo-biography. AusLondonder (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a decent amount of newspaper coverage, although it is mostly brief-ish: see [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68]. An argument could be made for WP:NBASIC, considering he seemed to have significant amount of appearances for prominent clubs. Not sure if that changes anyone's views: @Ltbdl, AusLondonder, Dougal18, and Robby.is.on:? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good research! Giant Snowman 07:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Dougal and AusLondoner. Football cards do not contribute to notability at all, and given passing mentions in match reports don't count towards even BASIC for modern players they shouldn't count for old players either. We don't have a single piece of the required IRS SIGCOV, so we have no valid justification for retaining this article. JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He also has a biographical entry in Chelsea The Complete Record: author: Rick Glanvill isbn: 9781909245303 also mentioned in The Little Book of Reading FC - 1920-2008 author: Alan Sedunary isbn: 9781780913711. There maybe more books with biographical information. Govvy (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you tell us what exactly is in those books? Dougal18 (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glanvill is Chelsea's official historian, he is not an independent source. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @JoelleJay: That's not correct, nor is it proper to discredit him. Will you do the same for Historians who went to Oxford and Cambridge and write about those subjects? He is a published author and a reputable one at that. Please don't use this argument ever again on any credited club historian. Govvy (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's literally hired by the club to write about club history. Of course he isn't independent. And if a historian is employed by Oxford to write about Oxford history then they aren't independent either. JoelleJay (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: Again you really have no idea, the Chelsea book is independent to the club, published by De Coubertin Books deCoubertin Books is a leading independent publisher, which publishes outstanding non-fiction titles predicated on high editorial and production values. We work with some of the biggest names in sport and sportswriting and our books have been nominated for numerous awards. Being hired by a club doesn't make the book published by the club. Also the link provided says he is the club historian, because he is the top of his field in the history for the club, at no time does that post on the Chelsea page say he is hired directly for them. The Reading book is published by Breedon Books Publishing Co Ltd and not Reading Football Club. These are both independent publishers to the clubs. I really don't understand why you feel these are primary sources when they are not remotely so. Govvy (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being an employee of the club (He has worked for all Chelsea FC's publications and media since 1993 and is the club's official historian.) means the person has a COI with the club, and this applies to material the person publishes through independent publishers (and obviously anything authored by the club would go through an external publisher; it's not like each club has its own book publishing house; the "Official Biography" of Chelsea that he penned ... for the club is through Headline Publishing Group). We'd consider a book authored by a relative of the subject to be non-independent regardless of where it's published; the same applies here. And what part of "the club's official historian", as recorded on the club's website, makes you think he's not working directly for them.....
I didn't say anything about primary sources. I said they are non-independent. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is like arguing that an 'official biographer' of a celebrity should be discredited...nonsense! Giant Snowman 18:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An official biographer of a celebrity who was hired by that celebrity's talent agency should absolutely be discredited! JoelleJay (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sports cards are reliable sources stat-wise.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – For the arguments presented so far in the discussion. I see no reason to discredit a club historian, or sports cards, considering that the athlete played in the 50s and 60s. The sources presented by @Govvy demonstrate credibility. Svartner (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Credibility of who? Dougal18 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The authors of mentioned books. Svartner (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So employees of the football club are somehow exempted from the NSPORT guidance saying Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players if they don't publish directly on the website?
The sports cards are completely trivial stats coverage. Why would they count? JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The delete arguments seem a bit WP:IDONTLIKEIT, in their attempts to discredit what seems like reasonable coverage. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete claiming a biographer who is an employee of the company is an independent source is a strange notion.

Industrial Insect (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, because this type of historiographical survey is not carried out partially, but rather as a measure to preserve part of the institution's history. The likelihood of the book's author having tampered with these numbers is negligible, which in my opinion makes the source completely credible. Svartner (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 redirect‎ to Kennedys Law. Daniel (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gates and Partners

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

Unclear that notability has been established. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Business. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Belgium, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. All the available coverage falls well within WP:ORGTRIV. I was not able to find anything more substantial. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Juest wanted to note, I'm alright with redirect, though I'm not so sure the other company is notable either. Don't really think there's anything to merge. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Kennedys Law into which Gates was dissolved. Why wasn't this suggested upfront? gidonb (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kennedys Law: Trivia PR coverage doesn't meet WP:NCORP, appropriate to merge to parent company even though sources in Kennedys Law aren't really independent Robertjamal12 ~🔔 09:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article there are many articles about it being purchased by Kennedys and its cases prior to the purchase [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]. Also covered in multiple legal books including the European Legal 500 until its merger and Chambers UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfloving (talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kennedys Law, also agree, don't think the sourcing for the redirect target meets NCORP either but that isn't the topic at AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:50, 11 May 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.

Others

Yoruba Arts Festival (via WP:PROD on 6 September 2023)

Northern Ireland

Irish Republican Movement

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

Was never notable in the first place, although it had the potential to be at the start. There was a brief flurry of news in relation to a statement they put out, but no sources that covered the organisation in any significant depth. No publicity since that statement at all. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Terrorism, Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the references already present in the article establish notability. Even if the group is no longer active, "once notable, always notable." I seem to remember someone saying that some of the people in the handout photo that appears in several of the references weren't holding their weapons correctly, implying that this was never a serious group. I can't confirm this, though. Nonetheless, reliable sources have covered this group, which means it's notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was never notable, although it had the potential to be if it had actually done anything. But other than releasing a statement, they've done nothing. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland). (And remove from Template:IRAs.) Per nom, the (current) topic/subject of the title (the org which asserted this name) is not notable. And never was. The only coverage suggests that a group(?), giving itself this name, released a statement (maybe two), back in 2019/2020. And that, seemingly, is all. The coverage, of those statements, doesn't meet WP:SIRS. In which the "S" ("S"ignificant) requires "significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth". The coverage does NOT cover the subject org in any depth. At all. (For all we know the "group" could have 2 members. If even that.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The comment above mine makes a great point; once notable, always notable. Even if the group isn't as active as it used to be, there's nothing wrong with keeping it around as it provides insight into the contemporary Dissident movement.

Castroonthemoon (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except, as repeatedly pointed out, it was never notable in the first place. A brief flurry of news about a single statement does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. See also guidance at WP:ORGDEPTH, there has to be coverage that "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization". Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland) - Per the argument put forward by Guliolopez. I agree with Guliolopez and Kathleen's bike that sources (or rather lack of) indicate that this organisation did not ever materialise in reality. While it's supposed founding was touted, it was never actually active. One press release is not enough to justify an article. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Óglaigh na hÉireann (Real IRA splinter group), where it is already mentioned. I agree that the topic is not standalone notable, but it's better discussed at the article where it splintered from, rather than just redirected to the main article on the republican movement. -- asilvering (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland) per above reasoning. // Timothy :: talk 14:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Scotland

Fuck It, I Love You (Malcolm Middleton song)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC; lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, and has been tagged for notability for over a decade. BilledMammal (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Brighter Beat per WP:NSONG. 162 etc. (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Brighter Beat: Other than the paragraph in this article, I could only find passing mentions of the song. Shows no signs of notability; Big Yawn is a blog and gives me no immediate reason to believe it would pass a reliability check. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fáilte

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

Not sure if this violates WP:DICT (wikipedia is not a dictionary). While I see why we have Alba and éire, (Scottish Gaelic and Irish for Scotland and Ireland respectively) because it refers to a country, do we really need a dictionary for a specific world in another language? For anyone wondering, fáilte is the Irish word for welcome. JuniperChill (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Ireland, and Scotland. JuniperChill (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; make it more explicitly a disambig page. —Tamfang (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would turn it into a DAB, as Tamfang suggests. I concur with JuniperChill that it is not appropriate to keep as a dictionary-like entry, but since there are three Wikipedia pages containing the word, a DAB may be appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how turning it into a disambig would work since the only other pages containing the word are Fáilte Ireland and Fáilte Towers. This may be an example of partial title match, but I am not sure if people simply refer it to 'Fáilte'. JuniperChill (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay Callaghan

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Scottish rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Scotland. JTtheOG (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Career never kicked on, sourcing exists but not enough to pass WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I feel I have to comment on Rugbyfan22's habit of creating stub articles for seemingly every aspiring player in the sport who makes any kind of appearance in a senior competition, with the majority not establishing themselves over the next few years, at which point they are AfD'ed and deleted with Rugbyfan22's endorsement. Does this not contravene the accepted principle and practice of, you know, notability being demonstrated before the creation of the article? I AGF and appreciate that it still takes a bit of effort to put these together (and that rugby is not the most actively edited area on the site so generally all contributions are useful), but TBH I'm getting vibes of WP:OWN here, with Rugbyfan22 happy for 80% of the bios they create to be deleted as long as the surviving 20% that get improved from their initial sparse condition were their creation, as opposed to being created later and in a better condition when the player is more clearly notable, but by a different editor. Far from a heinous offence but maybe something an admin might want to look at and advise upon IMO.Crowsus (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of these were created before the WP:NSPORTS guidelines were updated. Every one of these stubs passed the now depreciated WP:NRU guidelines. I could easily just say keep for all of these, as they passed guidelines at the time, but I'd rather adhere to the current view and offer workable solutions, such as redirects where applicable, but for the majority we don't have somewhere we can redirect to. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, I'll happily strike the above. If you'd rather simply delete it, please go ahead, or let me know and I'll do it if that seems more appropriate. Crowsus (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, WP:NSPORTS2022 was settled in March 2022. Seems like this user has created over 200 pages since that time, with only a handful going above stub-class. JTtheOG (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of which would likely pass WP:GNG in my opinion. There will likely be a few which are borderline, created under the likelihood of coverage increasing, but as you can see on red links for United Rugby Championship players (which I used to create on first appearance) the NSPORTS guidelines have been taken into account. There are no issues with creating stub articles either I don't believe. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JTtheOG, that's a fair point if you have looked into it more thoroughly. Personally I am happy to drop the matter for now, as most if not all of the AfDs I have seen from Rugbyfan22 do seem to have been created in the 'old days', but I don't rule out asking for someone to take a look in the future if there end up being further batches of speculative 'might meet GNG in the future' stubs coming here which were created after the changes were implemented. Crowsus (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zander Murray

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

Fails GNG. Sources in the article are routine transfer coverage/match reports. The Herald has no sigcov. Also there is WP:BLP1E because he wasn't getting any sigcov before coming out either. Dougal18 (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sexuality and gender, Football, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Homosexuality in association football#Scotland where he is mentioned and which ultimately is his sole claim to fame. Giant Snowman 18:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on further reflection, sources from Herald and The Times are probably sufficient. Giant Snowman 15:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @GiantSnowman:, He is still considered to be a signifciant trailblazer, even written as a piossiblity for 2022 Scot of the Year (see [76] - "no-one, however, has made a more significant impact on our game than Zander Murray") and 2024 Scottish Influencer of the Year and subject of BBC docuumnatary and has received seondary coverage over a few years from many reputed sources over the years - [77], [78], [79], [80], [81]. Football-wise, he was a veryu sigifnciant player for a Scottisjh lower legaue team - Gala Fairydean Rovers (see [82], [83], and [84]), where he "has scored 100+ goals and holds the club record for number of goals scored in one season". Put together, I think all of the above warrants him an article. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "awards" (which he didn't win) are meaningless nonsense. He presented that BBC documentary meaning it isn't independent of him. I note your latest thing is to toss around "has secondary coverage" when it is significant coverage that is required. NFOOTBALL (which he wouldn't have passed anyway) has been abolished. Dougal18 (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Meaningless nonsense" is pretty dismissive and coverage that is significant in my and GiantSnowman's opinion has been found above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are making two non notable awards sound like an Oscar or Nobel Prize. --Dougal18 (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know he's an amateur footballer but an argument can be made that there is consistent in-depth coverage. I know in an ideal world sexual orientation shouldn't mean anything but the fact is that open male homosexuality is rare in football (for the same reason, British Asian footballers may receive far more in-depth coverage than their talent would deserve if they were white). He came out in September 2022 and a documentary was made in March 2023, and we have in-depth coverage of him in December 2023 on the BBC [85] Herald [86] STV [87]. Far from a WP:BLP1E where all the coverage is about coming out in 2022 and then the news dries up. Similarly, I had written about Jesús Tomillero, a referee in amateur football who probably wouldn't have a page, but due to the rarity of his being gay, he had several years of in-depth coverage. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's only getting this coverage based on WP:BLP1E. Dougal18 (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps it's marginal but I think anyone interested in Homosexuality in association football#Scotland might well wonder what kind of playing career Murray had and, per the above, there is consistent coverage. Ben Mac Dui 14:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Nanetti

AfDs for this article:

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

This footballer, who seems to have never played in the top 3 tiers in Italy or top 4 tiers in England, was deemed non-notable in an AfD discussion in 2020. I can't find signicant coverage in reliable sources published since then that would suggest he is now notable – per WP:GNG, as WP:NFOOTBALL is obsolete. The article content is not the same as the version deleted in 2020, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. ^Complex/_Rational 17:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96] among many more English and Italian sources. Clearly siginifciant figure in English lower league football with extnsive career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of these sources, The Sun and Daily Mail are not considered reliable (deprecated, as documented at WP:RS/PS), and several others are blogs/tabloids which have similar shortcomings. Is there anything in more reputed sources such as BBC, Sky News, The Guardian, etc.? ^Complex/_Rational 20:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. seems okay, but not sure it's WP:SIGCOV, 2. per WP:THESUN, The Sun is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability, 3. very short, mostly quotes 4. short, mostly quotes, 5. a Wordpress blog – is the author a "subject-matter expert"?, 6. very short, mostly quotes, 7. short, mostly quotes, 8. one sentence mentions him, 9. per WP:DAILYMAIL, The Daily Mail is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability. So, of the nine sources you listed, one might be SIGCOV. Based on these sources alone, I don't see that Nannetti's a clearly significiant figure in English lower league football. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per @Das osmnezz. Svartner (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article fail WP:SIRS, and the sources listed above none are independent significal coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M Group Services

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

M&A activity appears to be pretty much the totality of the available sourcing, and that is excluded from establishing notability per WP:ORGTRIV. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Andrews Typhoons

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

Lacking in-depth secondary source coverage to meet the general notability guideline. Seen at NPP, moved to draftspace to allow for improvement but reverted by creator. AusLondonder (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Scotland. AusLondonder (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize I reverted an initial draftspace sending, I was just editing over time. What sort of sources should I add to make more credibility? There's only a few sources (university, BUIHA and the team's website) I found out to use. Should I improve in the drafter before releasing or try to expand on the existing page? Fastfads (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They would have to be "significant coverage" to the subject, from secondary sources from multiple reputable media outlets. If such coverage doesn't exist, or consists of simple scores/stats or namedrops, an article cannot be sustained. My vote is to Redirect to the University of St Andrews article if no such sources are proffered. Ravenswing 08:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added quite a few sources to the new page (and a few new sections with the source expansions!) - direct resources which tell plenty of stories from plenty of reputable outlets (at least in my opinion). Would appreciate your opinion at this point in article growth. Fastfads (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fastfads, firstly can I say this nomination is not a reflection on your work. Wikipedia does however have requirements articles must meet to demonstrate suitability for inclusion, most importantly the general notability guideline. Please take a look at the guideline for the kind of sources we require. Thanks, AusLondonder (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the motives for high quality articles and I understand the initial deletion nomination with what I originally published but I've put a significant amount work into making this article better. And once again, thank you for linking me to the many rules of Wikipedia article writing. It's been an learning experience and I feel my standards have had a lot of growth with recent edits - I think my extremely long "Keep" defense below gives evidence for that growth (and why this article should stay up). Yet I continue to have my work under a microscope - and the sources I have found criticized on the slightest details of independence. No matter what I do, it just doesn't seem like it is enough! At the same time when doing research I see one source articles for other teams in the same league remain with not a single complaint (not to say their existence is wrong - sometimes important histories don't have a lot of sources!). Even if I am told it isn't personal and not a reflection on my work, this perceived difference in standards undeniably makes it feel personal. It is extremely discouraging to me that this topic (on a website that is the de facto answer to any question that needs explanation - even something as niche as a UK university ice hockey team) gets me put under what I believe to be an excessive amount of scrutiny compared to similar articles.

Once again, I don't blame you for simply enforcing the rules of Wikipedia as you saw broken in my initial article. And I still believe in the mission of a global encyclopedia - I'll keep improving this page (to be done as explained in my "Keep" defense below) and pages around Wikipedia. However, regardless of outcome of this AfD (but especially if this fails; I can't spend hours finding sources, formatting and writing just to keep an article I wrote from being immediately sent to the morgue - with a chance that it could be sent back regardless) it will likely be some time before I attempt to create another article. I guess my final question is: What can I do to avoid an AfD on a new article in the future? And is this article still worthy of an AfD in your mind (and if so, why?) Fastfads (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of research into the guidelines (thank you @AusLondonder and @Ravenswing for the advice and links - I see that the editorial standards of Wikipedia are higher than what was told to me in school) and spent a lot of time updating the page to what I believe would be above the minimum amount of content to reach the guidelines of general notability - and have found quite a bit of new information about the team along the way.

Point #1: One of the main problems was a lack of secondary sources as I was mainly using the main page of the BUIHA and the team's page at phoons.net - I've now done a significant amount of research into the team and have found a ton of new information about the team entirely from secondary sources ranging from the local student newspaper to the national newspapers (BBC). There even is a video from 2014 which was someone's TV reel that gave a ton of information about the team, including interviews with the founders of the club. There's now a lot more secondary sources on there.

Point #2: Relative to other team pages in the BUIHA (and to applications of the guidelines in general), the Typhoons are a strong pick to have their own page. Take, for example, the London Dragons which was originally my template for the start of this article. The entire page is summary, roster, awards, retired numbers and what universities are involved. The sources are all the University page, the website and the BUIHA website. Yet, I agree with Wikipedia's editors that as it remains up, it's a worthy article to keep in place in the history of British ice hockey even if it may need more sources as the note shows. While other pages like Oxford University Ice Hockey Club carries far more history and therefore sources, I find it exceptional to compare a team founded in 2011 to the team page of the most historic ice hockey club in Europe. Despite being founded so recently, they still have a shockingly deep history to the team, which brings me to the next point.

Point #3: The Typhoons are an notable and important subject in British university ice hockey as well as in the University of St Andrews culture and history. When I started this, I figured I'd make another team page to fill one of the missing spots on the BUIHA teams list. Yet thanks to the pressure for secondary sources, I found this team is extremely notable in university life in St Andrews - and has an extremely interesting (albeit tragic history). According to University of St Andrews, there are 11,280 students at the school right now, so there is on record just under 15% of the entire school (1500 people) attending Jonny Wookey Memorial Game. While it may not have the historical importance of something like Ice Hockey Varsity Match, attendance that high shows it is a huge event for the students of St Andrews and Scotland as a whole. The only one that seems to even come close in St Andrews would be The Scottish Varsity. Considering the difference in popularity between ice hockey and rugby in Scotland, the fact that the number of people interested is this close is an interesting fact in itself. The game is worth archiving on its own but is especially worth inclusion within the context of a team page that is so important in university ice hockey as they won the championship just 2 years ago.

Point #4: There is still significantly more content to go through. All of the sources I have posted have been from "official" newspapers and sources online, but I have not gone through the years of articles on the experience and history written by the St Andrews student newspaper "The Saint". Even right now on their front page is a new article about the experience at Jonny Wookey this year where they lost. I'm pretty busy right now (I fit in the edits and this piece in a bit of free time) but by Friday I should have a complete page with all secondary sources out there - and a pretty perfect page for Wikipedia if you allow it to stay up.

With all of this, I feel there is plenty of evidence that this article is suitable for conclusion and meets the general notability guideline. Please check out the original article with the new additions. I hope these changes (and new sources) will convince you that this article is worth inclusion. As for me, I'm going to keep working on this page when I have time and I'll be voting Keep for this page. Fastfads (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Sources are exclusively non-independent (websites of BUIHA, Phoons, St Andrews, and St Andrews student newspapers) or fail NOTNEWS (news reports on a missing student). JoelleJay (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would disagree with point #1 lightly with emphasis on the student newspaper - while there is a reliance on sources that are related (and this is considered acceptable in the case of London Dragons, Sheffield Bears, Cardiff Redhawks etc.), there still are independent sources from that student documentary video, The Tab, and most importantly the student newspaper (given it is not funded by the university - it is independent, just adjacent to the community the same way that we consider The Student independent in Edinburgh) - are all independent and direct evidence of the history of the team. If you want to quote the scores or stats, you can find all of these people exist simply through looking at Elite Prospects - but that seems like I'm source dumping just to prove a point that the first Wookey game was won 6-3. It's not like I made this team up. So I both lightly disagree with this point, but also don't see how this mixes with the general notability guideline from which this AfD is built.

In point #2, the NOTNEWS criticism, I do not understand in any way how this fits the criteria for this one. The news articles made in the name of Jonny Wookey are an integral part of the story of this hockey team's biggest event of the year and one of the primary notability reasons about them. NOTNEWS seems to be if I was using breaking news to make this entire article up - but it's an added piece to the stories of Kieran McCann and especially Jonny Wookey who both had an impact on the team - and therefore are viable sources. I would really need an explanation on the not news criticism to consider it.

Lastly, I'm going to take a piece from my looking at the many pages of AfD guidelines and precedents: AFDISNOTCLEANUP and DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP - if the style of sourcing is the problem but this is still notable and passes the guidelines, it isn't worth deleting or redirecting. Fastfads (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of St Andrews Athletic Union - there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so notability has not been establish when judged against the criteria set out in WP:SIRS. Drchriswilliams (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wales

David Edmund Williams

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under SNG or GNG. The only source is FamilySearch.org. And it it just very basic obit type info plus a one sentence mention that he was one of the founders of a political party. Tagged for wp:notability by others since December North8000 (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The stated notability claim here would be fine if he were reliably sourced as passing WP:GNG for it, but is not an "inherent" notability freebie that would exempt him from having to have any valid sourcing, but the sole footnote here is genealogical information, not GNG-building reliable source coverage about his work in politics. Bearcat (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Helping found a notable party does not in and of itself establish that someone is notable. And that's if it's even true; people have lied about this sort of thing before (see Randy Toler), and the one source cited on the page doesn't exactly help prove it. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Booth

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP with no evidence of sustained coverage; subject made one pro appearance. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was this, which would not be enough by itself. JTtheOG (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Wales. JTtheOG (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Career hasn't really kicked on since his early appearances, other than the source nom has found struggling to find anything else suitable. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No longer involved in the pro game. No significant coverage and unlikely to see any in the future. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Everett

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Welsh rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I came across was this piece on an injury he sustained. JTtheOG (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Wales. JTtheOG (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Career never really kicked on to bring WP:GNG passing sourcing. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Player now in second division, likely to not generate future significant coverage. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Rift

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

Fails WP:GNG its WP:ALLPLOT and has been tagged for notability for 12 years Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Wales. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, for one, Illuminating Torchwood has a lot to say about the topic at various places, but usually calls it "the Rift" or "the rift" rather than the Cardiff Rift. Daranios (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Any chance you could add this to the article (and ping me)? There is a receptions section already, but sourced to a meh newspaper so far, and nothing else. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I've added what I had thought to from Illuminating Torchwood, tough there is some more, as can also be seen in previews of pages not available at Google Books. Daranios (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Thank you. Weak keep for me considering the current state of the 'reception and analysis' section. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Collecting further sources, shorter but still relevant are: Once Upon a Time Lord, pp. 129-130, "'You guys and your cute little categories": Torchwood, The Space-Time Rift and Cardiff's Postmodern, Postcolonial and (avowedly) Pansexual Gothic", and very brief but calls it "a key point in the mythology of Doctor Who during the Tenth Doctor era", this web article. Daranios (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That web aticle doenst count for very much. Valnet sources are not great for showing notability. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 12:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: I agree, was just listing it for future reference, useable as ScreenRant still counts as "reliable for entertainment-related topics". Might have phrased that better. Being convinced of the notability of the topic based on the other sources, I've gone ahead and added that to the article as low-hanging fruit. Daranios (talk)
Keep I believe the existing sources together establish notability. While there is currently an imbalance between plot and non-plot in the article, it is also not all plot, as I believe the criticism of the Cardiff Rift being a plot device for lazy writers is relevant despite being presented in a satirical manner. (The Register is considered a reliable source.) And these problems can be solved by normal editing with the listed sources. Daranios (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge: This isn't really a separate topic from the fiction itself. I do see some mentions in sources, but not enough to reach WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The non-plot content has been expanded now since the beginning of this AfD. Daranios (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Amser Te (via WP:PROD on 14 August 2023)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Batte, Elliott. "Dappy Unveils 'Good Intentions' Video - Watch Now - Stereoboard". Stereoboard.com. Retrieved 2024-05-08.

[2] "RIO's not so Unpredictable future". 2010-08-03. Retrieved 2024-05-08.

[3] "Dappy debuts new single 'Come With Me'". Digital Spy. 2012-06-27. Retrieved 2024-05-08.

[4] Batte, Elliott. "Dappy Unveils 'Good Intentions' Video - Watch Now - Stereoboard". Stereoboard.com. Retrieved 2024-05-08.

[5] "RIO's not so Unpredictable future". 2010-08-03. Retrieved 2024-05-08.

[6] "Dappy debuts new single 'Come With Me'". Digital Spy. 2012-06-27. Retrieved 2024-05-08.

[7] ttps://www.jantakareporter.com/entertainment/for-the-sake-of-peace-between-our-two-countries-may-your-channel-die-a-quick-death-pakistani-lawyer-turns-down-arnab-goswamis-invitation/292457/

[8] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20231105140841/https://minutemirror.com.pk/secretary-summoned-over-lg-officials-term-completion-plea/

[9] ttps://tribune.com.pk/story/819315/saving-the-turf-the-controversy-of-the-21st-amendment here

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom

United Kingdom

Higher Education and Research Opportunities in the UK

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

England

Meff

Others

Northern Ireland

Others

Scotland

Others

Wales

Others