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

Ben Obese-Jecty

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

Candidates for UK Parliament are not automatically notable. Similarly, writing a few newspaper articles also does not confer notability. Propose deleting and if he is successful in his campaign, it would be appropriate to make a page once he is elected. Drerac (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Cleo Cooper (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alamgir Hashmi

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

This BLP reads like a CV. None of the listed works or awards strike me as noteworthy or notable, indicating a failure to meet WP:AUTHOR. Additionally, there appears to be a lack of significant coverage in WP:RS, which means the subject also fails basic WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Poetry, United Kingdom, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Appears in The Oxford Companion to Twentieth-Century Poetry in English (1 ed.) (available through Wikimedia Library, excerpted here):
Hashmi, Alamgir (1951– ), was born in Lahore, educated in Pakistan and the United States, and has worked as a professor of English, editor, and broadcaster. His early work ... is characterized by a terse, witty, imagistic style, and reveals a recurring preoccupation with language, time, and place. The poet's peripatetic career in America, Europe, and Pakistan is reflected in the concerns of his subsequent collections, .... As Hashmi has developed, there has been a broadening of human sympathies and an emerging political awareness which have modified the virtuosity and self-absorption of some of his earliest writing. His most recent publications are ....

I would vote Keep by WP:GNG if a similar source was found. FYI, I removed the author bio paragraph that was completely uncited and appears to have been included verbatim from the author's personal website. This may be a copyright concern. Suriname0 (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that there is some coverage available. However, the concern lies in the insufficient extent of coverage to meet the WP:SIGCOV. The subject is listed on Oxford Reference, just because some of their work must have been hosted by Oxford University Press but I'm sure that won't make him WP:IHN. -—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unusually for a poet, there is plenty of in-depth coverage of him and his work to be found [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mission of the International Organisation for Migration, London

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

No secondary sources. Sole source is government list. Article on an individual office of the IOM which simply states it exists and its location. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. Nothing to merge and an implausible search term. AusLondonder (talk) 00:06, 26 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) 00:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this is a good merge candidate because there's not even enough information to work out if any of the content is even still true. It does seem to still exist from a Google search, but it's certainly not notable outside of its parent article. Redirect not especially good idea other as is not a likely redirect BrigadierG (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator rationale. Local units of larger organizations are not notable unless there are substantial reliable source coverage of it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. 659 Squadron AAC

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

The article has almost no information not included in either No. 659 Squadron RAF or 1 Regiment Army Air Corps. PercyPigUK (talk) 14:37, 25 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) 14:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No. 659 Squadron RAF into AAC article. Gavbadger (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Cousins

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; everything else seems to lack any notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:30, 25 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) 14:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of the United Kingdom, Saint Petersburg

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

Lacking secondary sources specifically about the consulate. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Russia, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep. It's relevant to the wider history of UK - Russia relations. Notable because it was forced to close. Cantab12 (talk) 16:03, 25 April 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]

132 Aviation Support Squadron RLC

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

Insufficient sources have been provided to prove notability. This article is regarding a company-sized sub-unit. PercyPigUK (talk) 22:17, 24 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) 22:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle as 7 Aviation Support Battalion RLC, a battalion sized unit, which will be more notable. This includes 132 Squadron and a couple of other companies. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME the unit you are referring to? PercyPigUK (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME. Retain squadron article as redirect - better references may appear in time. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. 677 (Suffolk and Norfolk Yeomanry) Squadron AAC

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

In my opinion, the article is not notable. Only one reference is listed and it is not independent of the topic of the article. In the case of this article, the squadron is company-sized. PercyPigUK (talk) 19:29, 24 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) 19:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Aviation squadrons normally warrant their own articles. Predecessor units were larger: Norfolk Yeomanry and Suffolk Yeomanry have their own articles. And sources do not have to be independent of the topic of an article,. We don't need to write articles on football from sources on cricket. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary or tertiary sources determine notability (WP:PSTS) so if they are not included in the article, notability cannot be proven. This article is about an army squadron (company-sized) instead of an RAF squadron (battalion-sized). PercyPigUK (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement for the secondary or tertiary sources that establish notability to actually be used in an article. Notability is proven by their existence, not their presence. WP:BEFORE: If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps, the information on the regiment article is virtually the same as what is in the article. Gavbadger (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Ratcliff (producer)

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO, and I do not believe being a producer for a notable band is an automatic WP:NMUSIC pass either. I could not locate sources with substantial coverage of Ratcliff. All sources cover him only peripherally, as a producer for a-Ha. The article is now primarily an autobiography. Would accept a redirect to a-Ha as an alternative to deletion. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and United Kingdom. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Journalism, Television, Advertising, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree that REDIRECT to a-Ha is appropriate. Most sources are primary references. The only third party references are more about a-Ha with this subject being mentioned tangentially. Otherwise, this article seems more promotional than anything else. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

383 Commando Petroleum Troop RLC

(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) 23:32, 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) 23:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Commando Logistic Regiment. Non-notable (and tiny!) military unit. Various sources note that the unit exists, but nothing to demonstrate independent notability from the parent formation. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's actually quite a bit of coverage of this unit in works discussing the role of the Commando Logistic Regiment during the Falklands War - please see this Google Books review: [8]. This book in particular discusses the troop and its role, as the decision to not mobilise it for the war was a significant mistake in the author's opinion. @Hawkeye7: do you have a view here based on the article you developed on logistics in the Falklands War? Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Commando Logistic Regiment, since the article contains nothing that is not in that parent article, without prejudice to its re-creation at a later date if more material becomes available. I did mention the unit in British logistics in the Falklands War, but as Nick-D notes, it did not deploy. Badsey and Privratsky discuss the problems that arose as a result of this, so secondary sources are available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:25, 25 April 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]

Jack Parsons (producer)

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

Article only has a single source, not enough for notability. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Night Hawk (comics)

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

I initially WP:PRODed this article with the following rationale: "Non-notable fictional character. None of the current references are reliable, secondary sources. Searches just turned up very trivial mentions - no significant coverage in reliable sources." It was later de-prodded, with the suggestion that a full discussion should be held due to the subject being a pre-internet subject, so I am bringing it to AFD. To give further details on my WP:BEFORE results, the only results I was able to find in actual reliable sources were extremely brief, usually just a sentence or two stating "An early example of this kind of character was Night Hawk" and that's about it, such as these two books. Rorshacma (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and United Kingdom. Rorshacma (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect/merge to the The Nelson Lee Library seems more sensible than deletion. I'm assuming you've checked the physical media covering British story papers, like Book & Magazine Collector, Boys Will Be Boys, etc., etc. rather than just using Google. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Couldn't find WP:SIGCOV. Would support a redirect if people can agree on a valid target. But it's an unlikely search term and deletion is also fine. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Nelson Lee Library, agreeing with BoomboxTestarossa. We do have the mentioned secondary sources, which should count for something, but does not seem enough to be to establish stand-alone notability (I cannot see The British Superhero, p. 41, myself). So merge as WP:AtD. Daranios (talk)

William James Crawford

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

Unref article, and I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:BIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Photography, Football, Rugby union, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see some of his works online, but I don't see anything to suggest notability. Govvy (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreffed, fails WP:BIO. Anwegmann (talk) 23:00, 24 April 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]

Mehmet Abbasoğlu (businessman)

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

Fails GNG or relevant specefic criteia. Not enough independent significant coverage.

Source 1: Petrol Ofisi reached a market share of 23.09 percent (translated), Reliable? Unknown (likely), Independent? Yes, Significant coverage? No
Source 2:Petrol Ofisi CEO Abbasoğlu: Our only bottleneck is our roads (translated) Reliable? Not likely, Significant coverage? No (Routine coverage of a conference, only quotes the CEO's statement)
3:Petrol Ofisi Group accelerates investments in line with Turkey's national energy strategy, Reliable? Not likely (State-run), Significant coverage? No (About company announcements, not the subject of the article)
4:Vitol-owned Petrol Ofisi agrees to purchase BP’s Turkish fuel operations, Reliable? Unknown, Independent? No (Publisher owns the company), Significant coverage? No (One-line mention)
5:404-error
6:Turkey’s Petrol Ofisi announces new chief executive officer, Reliable? No (Likely an advertisement), Independent? No (Likely an advertisement, no bylines, promotional tone, likely WP:RSNOI applies), Significant coverage? No (Mainly discusses company position changes, not the subject)
7:Change of general manager at Petrol Ofisi, Press release citing company statement
8:How A Gritty Market Leader Transformed Out Of A ‘Doomed’ Industry, Forbes contributor promo, not reliable by itself, further it's mostly an interview so primary source
9:Mehmet Abbasoğlu became the General Manager of Petrol Ofisi, similar to source 7, Press release citing a company statement
Sources 10-16, more of the same. Waste of time and energy detailing here.

X (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excluding the material from Forbes and sources where the person is an employee or director, the references seem fine. These are all valid references for a corporate executive. Newspaper articles aren't press releases; while a company announcement may be the starting point for a newspaper story about an executive appointment, the newspaper makes its own decisions about whether the announcement is newsworthy and what to include. Anadolu Agency is a legitimate news agency despite being state-run, although some caution is needed when considering its coverage of politics. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, appointment news (yes technically may not be Press releases, but the specific references I mentioned as PR merely report anything independent but relay/quote the company statement) fo-shizzle falls under routine coverage. X (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found in article or BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, routine mill news based on press releases, mentions, etc do not meet WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Hum Europe

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

This is a simple listing without contextual information and falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. The few references available are about individual programming and not the programming as a whole. Fails WP:NLIST. CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, Pakistan, Europe, and United Kingdom. CNMall41 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This channel seems to be an international service mostly consisting of Pakistani shows that are not specific to it. No original programming, no list. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm generally agree of it per WP:RS & WP:GNG for CNMall41 and Sammi Brie. Although the references are few, this is similar to Hum TV but this article is a broadcast coverage from Pakistan. Not original programming and no specific list occurs. HurricaneErl 2022 (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Representative of the UNHCR and WFP, London

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

Contested PROD of an individual office of the UNHCR. Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. Zero secondary sources, only source is government listing of diplomatic missions. AusLondonder (talk) 13:03, 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) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect. Repeating the reason I gave for deprodding this: "This should be (merged and) redirected somewhere. Possibly List of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom#International organisations but a page about the UNHCR/WFP representatives would be better if there is one". Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree there's anything particularly useful to merge. I really doubt many readers already on Wikipedia are going to be searching "Representative of the UNHCR and WFP, London" to get to a list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They won't be using this title to find a list of diplomatic missions in London, but they will be using this title to find the content we have about this topic that is located at the list page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is effectively from a search term, other than incoming links (which mostly seem to be from the diplomatic missions in London template). I'm questioning who will be using such a specific, lengthy search term. I think it's a very implausible search term. If they forget to add WFP when searching, they'll get nowhere but if they include WFP there's a redirect? That's so arbitrary and unnecessary. Keep in mind that prior to the PROD and AfD, the page was struggling to get a single view a day. AusLondonder (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article merely confirms it exists, fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 23 April 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]

Embassy of Guinea, London

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

Article contains no content other than location and former location of the embassy. Lacking any secondary sources, only source is government listing of diplomatic missions. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 19:25, 21 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) 19:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a quick Google search I can't find anything useful, so perhaps this should not be standalone. Best WP:ATD I can see is redirecting to List of diplomatic missions of Guinea#Europe. —Kusma (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (NB this could have been done – or at least tried – without an AfD). I was going to suggest Foreign relations of Guinea as a target, but the target suggested by Kusma is probably better. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article merely confirms it exists. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kusma. Not notable enough for an article, but a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Weissacher

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

Highly promotional piece written by a UPE. PROD declined. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, Austria, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — reeks of self-promotion; prod declined, like on Renzo Vitale, by a single-purpose sockpuppet, hopefully only delaying the inevitable deletion. — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO tional article. DrowssapSMM 02:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Agree 100% with what's already been stated MaskedSinger (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina, London

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

No content other than stating the embassy exists. Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources, single source is government list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bosnia and Herzegovina–United Kingdom relations. There is functionally no information to merge. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per IgantiusofLondon although List of diplomatic missions in London would also make a good target (I'd be happy with either). Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montserrat–United Kingdom relations

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

Despite the title the article is primarily about the representative office of Montserrat in London. Lacking secondary sources to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The current article is poor, but I'm certain that the topic is notable: after all, we're talking about the relations of the United Kingdom with one of its overseas territories! There should be some space somewhere for encyclopedic coverage of how the central government of the United Kingdom relates to (the government of) one of its overseas territories.

At the back of my mind, a history section could be easily constructed from existing content at Montserrat. From a Geography class case study in my school days, I remember the UK government's donations to Montserrat following its volcanic eruption received quite some coverage. Also, this (non-independent) webpage from the UK Government can point to other important events or episodes worth mentioning.

Nonetheless, three concerns prevent me from !voting Keep:

Firstly, would any such article simply be a WP:COATRACK? We would need to find some reliable, independent sources that discuss the topic qua topic, rather than a miscellany of "here's how the UK and Montserrat interact with each other".
Secondly, I notice other BOTs don't seem to have a "BOT–United Kingdom relations" article (cf. Foreign relations of the Falkland Islands redirects to British Overseas Territories#Foreign affairs; Foreign relations of Bermuda redirects to Bermuda#International relations. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign relations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, closed as Delete in March 2015).
Finally, I'm not convinced this is the best article title for the topic. It suggests that Montserrat is a sovereign state, rather than a self-governing territory, and that feels odd to me. And while I'd happily support a redirect or merge as a WP:ATD, I can't find any appropriate target.

So, my instinct is that there is a notable topic here, but the current article doesn't do it justice, and I don't think the article title does either. I'm not sure if the topic merits a standalone article, and there's no obvious alternative to deletion. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Representative of Montserrat, London as is the case for other British Overseas Territories Dn9ahx (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those other representative office articles have been deleted, others are at AfD now. AusLondonder (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Clouston

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

As noted in WP:NPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider district or parish councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage. Likewise, being a candidate for national office doesn't normally meet WP:NPOL, absent substantial coverage in secondary sources, and I can find only routine local press coverage. He has written for and been interviewed by some notable media, but those are WP:PRIMARY sources, and his written work doesn't yet meet WP:NAUTHOR. Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON, unless he wins a parliamentary seat in the upcoming general election. Restoring the redirect would be fine as an alternative to deletion, but I've brought it here for discussion rather than WP:BOLDly redirecting. Wikishovel (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, United Kingdom, and England. Wikishovel (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of his activities demonstrate much notability, from leading a minor party to serving as a councillor. Sourcing is not great, mostly primary sources, such as election results and his own tweets. Can't find much better. AusLondonder (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present)#Leaders if notability cannot be established at this point in time. May pick up coverage in the forthcoming general election. Rupples (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He hasn't held office at any level that would confer "inherent" notability under NPOL, but the article is referenced almost entirely to primary and unreliable sources and thus fails to get him over WP:GNG instead of having to pass NPOL. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but just being a candidate is not enough to already get him an article now. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvalu House

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

An honorary consulate located in a residential house. No suitable secondary sources, only sources are a government diplomatic list and Embassypages.com. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 07:32, 21 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) 07:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Tuvalu, where most of the encyclopaedic information already is, or List of diplomatic missions in London, which is probably a better destination for someone searching for this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Pristina

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

Lacking in-depth coverage in secondary sources specifically about the embassy. Sources are primary sources, deprecated sources and Twitter. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Kosovo, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kosovo-United Kingdom relations, which I'm surprised doesn't contain this useful information. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of the United Kingdom, Osaka

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

Consular office lacking sufficient secondary sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Japan, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge'. There is plenty of encyclopaedic information in this article that shouldn't be just thrown away. If additional secondary sources can't be found (remember some are likely to be in Japanese and/or predate Google) then it should be merged to a broader article, maybe Japan-United Kingdom relations. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:ORG. Any relevant material should be in Japan–United Kingdom relations. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Concar

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

Lacking sufficient in-depth coverage in secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Sources are purely mentions of his appointments. Fails WP:NBIO. AusLondonder (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Tanzania, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable, not seeing significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Antigua and Barbuda, London

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

Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources; sole source is a government list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and Antigua and Barbuda. AusLondonder (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London, which contains most of the same information so is more helpful to readers than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawker Siddeley HS 138

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

Never built aircraft concept. I cannot find much of anything about this design, so I do not see how an article can be sustained on it. If there are sources I am somehow missing please let me know. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Aviation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not enough published info to pass WP:GNG. Also, much of what is given here is not backed up by the existing sources, even conflicts with one or two other snippets I have found, so a merge of any kind is not worth considering. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [updated 01:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)][reply]
Delete - cannot find any substantial coverage. Does not appear to have ever risen from the pages of a speculative newsletter. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Representative of Anguilla, London

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

Contested PROD. No sources at all other than a listing of diplomatic missions in London. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party coverage to meet GNG. Article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#British Overseas Territories. That already contains the address so there is nothing to merge, but given the list does exist there is no benefit in deletion over redirection. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe a redirect is necessary here, this is not a very plausible search term. AusLondonder (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I firmly disagree, we have content about this topic so it benefits us to make that content easy to find. If the topic was notable enough for an article it would be at this title, so this is a search term people will likely use to find it, and the presence of the redirect will discourage recreation of an article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Conway (actor)

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

Unable to locate much beyond fairly trivial mentions. Not seeing in-depth coverage specifically about him and his career. AusLondonder (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. This kind of Wikipedia criterion, we emphasize once more, does not reflect in the slightest the person's professional abilities or anything else related to the subject's life. But Wikipedia is not some complete directory of actors. -The Gnome (talk) 20:37, 24 April 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 14:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of East Timor, London

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

One sentence-stub that completely fails WP:GNG. Sole source is a government list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London. Not notable enough for an article but notable enough for a list entry and redirecting to that is better for readers. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 22 April 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]

James Dring

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

PROD requested, but denied for being Grammy nominated. However, WP:ANYBIO requires winning once, or being nominated multiple times. Is twice good enough? I read multiple as something greater than two. So, fails ANYBIO. Even more, none of the references pass WP:SIRS, so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Sources are database entries and press releases. No significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — to add to what UtherSRG said, he was nominated for one Grammy, not two, together with four other people. Also, the article is by a banned sockpuppet and paid editor, which we shouldn’t reward. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per this link [9], as well as the Grammy nomination, he has been nominated for a Golden Globe. Also - clearly WP:MUSICBIO applies here. ResonantDis_tortion 19:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With named nominations for ~~two~~ three notable awards, that is sufficient to meet WP:MUSICBIO#8. There's also sufficient WP:RS to show the subject meets WP:COMPOSER#1. I have cleaned up the article including removing non-RS citations and adding several more, which may not be multiple lines in depth but do contribute per WP:BASIC, so any "whiff" of paid editor contribution no longer applies. ResonantDis_tortion 23:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per the Billboard reference just added to the article - Dring was a named credit in the nomination of the Feel Good Inc. Grammy award. So he does have two Grammy nominations, plus the Golden Globe; I've updated my !vote. ResonantDis_tortion 15:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per ResonantDistortion. X (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject specific guidelines are for guidance only - every topic has to meet WP:GNG when WP:AFD is invoked. It seems unlikely that we will find WP:SIGCOV about him. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. 2A02:AB88:4C01:7500:84E:6485:B66C:DC73 (talk) 22:17, 20 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, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also per WP:NOTINHERITED. Article is rife with the requisite heavy namedropping and coattailing (Jamie T in particular) in attempt to cover for lack of individual notability and weak press-release sourcing. Being nominated just once for a soundtrack song all the way back in 2010, signing an agreement, and his recent production for an unknown indie artist (Terra Twin) aren't enough for SIGCOV. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 00:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) "all the way back in 2010" The date of the Grammy nomination is irrelevant as per WP:NTEMP, (2) Dring has been a Grammy nominee twice not once, the first in 2005, which is verified by a RS in the article, (3) The reason the article is "rife with the requisite heavy namedropping" is because the subject has made credited and verified contributions to a number of notable works, (4) two credited grammy nominations does rather indicate that notability by association does not apply, and (5) There are c. 14 words devoted to Jamie T, which does not appear undue, given that, for example, on the album Trick "sees Jamie T play all instruments alongside longterm collaborator James Dring" ([10]). I know I am probably repeating myself, but WP:BASIC, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER all apply. ResonantDis_tortion 07:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO and fails WP:GNG. Can’t find independent reliable sources giving significant coverage. Contributor892z (talk) 05:14, 26 April 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 [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. 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]

Switch Scotland

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

This article about a digital radio multiplex has been tagged for notability since 2012 and I'm unable to find much in the way of SIGCOV to assert notability - just articles about stations opening and closing on the multiplex signal, which are primarily about the stations and not the multiplex. There is !precedent for redirecting these articles to the article for their parent company [18]. Most of this article consists of unsourced WP:OR about stations being added, deleted and moved around on various digital radio multiplexes. Flip Format (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Flip Format (talk) 13:23, 14 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!} 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Through the Dragon's Eye episodes

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

Looking back in articles history the sources given were links to youtube videos which were removed because of unclear copyright status - which appears to be where these plot summaries are lifted from (example ep1 matching the plot summary in this article exactly). This makes me think that the article is a possible copyvio itself. Either way the plot summaries excessive, and this is not an encylopedic list. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Lists, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 14 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!} 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to parent article Through the Dragon's Eye in it's existing "Episodes" section, but use the Template:Episode table template to organise this neater and with a condensed episode summary. I agree that it's hard to justify the need for a separate episode article for this TV series, which I recall well from my own childhood, but none the less accept the episodes themselves aren't particularly notable. I am not convinced by the WP:COPYVIO concerns as expressed by the nom, as it seems the episode summaries were written (c.2008) before they were uploaded to youtube (c.2010). If there was evidence the current episodes prose existed/exists elsewhere before being added to the article, that may then give weight to deletion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as outlined by Bungle – neither this list nor the parent article is long enough to justify a split. Some summaries may need to be trimmed after merging to comply with MOS:TVPLOT. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arboricultural Association

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

Does not seem to be notable. A search does not reveal any non-trivial coverage of the subject. The only source in the article is primary (the organization's website). XabqEfdg (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. XabqEfdg (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Biology. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Its journal Arboricultural Journal: International Journal of Urban Forestry (formerly Arboricultural Association Journal) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q96326792 is indexed in Scopus. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big John @ Breakfast

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

There's nothing to suggest that this radio morning show is notable over and above the station on which it appears. Anything that can be sourced can be merged to the article on Hallam FM, but I can't find anything out there that is independent SIGCOV for this show itself. Flip Format (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A show which has on air for 24 years, and has won many industry awards, is clearly notable. Rillington (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you need to go back and look at WP:GNG and read how Wikipedia defines "notability". Several of your comments are along these lines - it's a broadcasting radio station, so it's notable; it's been on the air for years, so it's notable. These assertions don't tie in with the actual guideline, which is that the subject has to have had "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" that are "independent of the subject". Before nominating, I look for this in various sources, and if I've nominated something, it's because I've been unable to find it during my own research. In other cases, I find coverage and add it to flesh out an article that's otherwise unsourced. If others (including you) can find WP:SIGCOV for the subject of an article I've nominated, then that's great, but just asserting "it's notable" carries little weight. I haven't found anything for Big John @ Breakfast other than brief mentions in local papers and the radio trade press, nothing that would assert notability. It appears to be a WP:MILL radio morning show like many others around the world that don't have their own articles. Flip Format (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think we will always clash over Afd as I continue to hold the view that you seem to want articles deleted far too readily, although I note that you seem to have somewhat reigned in this instinct, which is good. As you know, I am against AfD as a matter of course, not least as people have made an effort to produce, and update these articles, and to want them deleted is a bit like throwing all their efforts back at them by using a very narrow, even draconian, interpretation of rules to justify having their efforts deleted. My view is to be positive about articles and it is very rare that I would ever advocate for anyone's efforts to be deleted, and this article does have sufficient independent references to further justify its inclusion. Rillington (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As with most AFDs these days, we need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hits Radio South Yorkshire where the show is mentioned. Sources don't provide the significant coverage required to pass the GNG. Regarding awards, there needs to be reporting independent of the award giver and radio station. As the programme is ongoing there's still a chance of it becoming notable, so a redirect to the radio station is preferable to outright deletion. Rupples (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC) To elaborate, the listing of award recipients is OK but doesn't tell us why the programme received the award. If reviews of and discussions about the show/awards are sourced, it would help demonstrate notability. Rupples (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC). The limited content looks reliably sourced so can be merged rather than just redirected. Changing my view to merge and redirect on reflection. Rupples (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Hits Radio South Yorkshire, not independantly notable. Desertarun (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maan Abu Taleb

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

~~Took a look at this article at the suggestion of another editor who suggested a delete nom. After reviewing it, I'm gonna agree with him.~~ The only sources I can find of this guy are, a Vice interview (not enough) and coverage of his magazine (sexual misconduct allegations, mostly) The magazine he founded, Ma3azef, may have a case for notability despite being a redlink, but this is not WP:INHERITED (and additionally, fails WP:AUTHOR 3.). Then there is the matter of his book, the english translation of the book seems to have gotten no coverage whatsoever and frankly, the fact that it was only longlisted for a rather niche prize (the Banipal, which is awarded to english translations of Arabic books), seems to only strengthen the case here. Given that this article has had this sourcing issue for at least four years, it seems to suggest that nobody else can find sources either. Hence, this likely fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR/WP:NEDITOR. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Jordan, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Numerous and diverse secondary sources emerge on a Google search. The English translation of his first novel was published by an academic press, and it appears he's active in the Arabic diaspora. I assess that the subject is notable and the page is marked as stub quality for lack of volunteer editors contributing to expand it. I've done some work and will add more soon. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Allan Nonymous, when you took a look at the article - did you look at the subject's Wikidata item, which was created back in 2019. In particular, on 13 December 2020 a contributor added the Google Knowledge Graph ID which has a wide amount of interesting information available at a click and waiting for further editing of the page by future volunteer editors (such as myself). Basing your judgment on the content of a stub page is a weak argument, and I write this as a Good Faith editor with a lot of work in Wikidata under my belt. In evaluating a page to nominate as AfD's, this would be my advice. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deborahjay that article is made of paper, the numerous sources are only 2, I can't believe it when my Noam Bettan article had 22 sources. Furthermore, the first is an autobiography of a blog, if the article does not make it relevant, it lacks too much content for it to remain here, it seems like a mirror article, that article could very well be on another free website where it does not matter. ask for too much information like in FANDOM. Acartonadooopo (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Sock comment struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Acartonadooopo, you fail to show understanding of Wikipedia guidelines relevant to new page creators: notability, biographies of living people, reliable sources, stub article. Your 22 sources for the Noam Bettan page were from Israeli popular music platforms and websites, not mainstream media. I found them inadequate and agreed with the Deletion recommendation. This page you've proposed for deletion is a stub for notable person, an author with listings in the US Library of Congress and the National Library of Israel (and Canada, Japan and others, besides his ID included in the Virtual International Authority File. This is evinced by his Wikidata item. Considering how little experience you have in the EN WP, it's not too soon for you to learn the consensus on best practices of this collaborative effort before you criticize from your own point of view. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata shoudn't be used for notability here, it's user created, so just any old person can go create a profile there. It's really only useful to us for cross-platform linking of topics, it has its own set of standards that don't apply here either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think we have notability. I can't find book reviews and this is the only RS [19], but it's more of an interview. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe a redirect to the red-linked magazine he founded, the Ma3azef, might work. There's some coverage around that. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, that's why I mentioned it as an option given that Ma3azef is probably notable. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it has come to my attention that the user here who suggested the nom was a sock. I have struck the portion of the comment referring to him, but I think the nom is still sound here (despite the rather unsavory way this was brought to my attention).

Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 12:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Vogel

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

No evidence of any notability. A reporter did some OR and identified what he thought was the last in the line of succession. In reality the lne of succession is almost infinite, if one whole line died out the rules allow succession to be tracked back to earlier monarchs and through wider family connections. This is just trivial nonsense. Was PRODed and dePRODded before, hence this AfD. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established by all the media coverage already cited in the article, including an article in The Wall Street Journal. Contrary to the nominator's claim, the line of succession is distinctly finite. It consists only of descendants of Sophia of Hanover. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Interesting human interest story, but without much more, I don't see notability. Medical therapist interviewed a decade ago with nothing since, I don't see sustained coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 4972nd in line, if that helps. Could be a one line mention in an article about the monarchy, but that's all. Oaktree b (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ into Succession to the British throne, a sentence on the lines of "In 2011 it was reported that some genealogists had stated that therapist Karin Vogel, from Rostoock, Germany, was then the 4,972nd and last in the line of succession." with the various sources. (The WSJ seems to be the core report, but is pay-walled so I can't see it). Seems an encyclopedia-worthy snippet of reporting, but not enough to give her an article of her own. PamD 21:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more carefully at Succession to the British throne I note that the list on which she appears is mentioned and referenced, as is the update 10 years later where she was again in last place, this time at 5,753. I have added her name and a couple of her refs to that article. I now think we can just Redirect to Succession to the British throne#Current line of succession. PamD 22:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the reporters were not "doing OR" as asserted by the nominator: they were reporting on a report by a notable genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner who had compiled what he asserted to be a complete list (and yes, it is a finite set of people because of the requirement that they be descendants of Sophia, although this list is over-inclusive as it doesn't check for "in communion with the Church of England"!). PamD 22:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. WP:ONEEVENT. DrKay (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. Stub with limited opportunity for growth. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: while not the definition of WP:ONEEVENT, this person isn't notable. They hold a spot in a line, that, because of it's position, has received news coverage. Redirect is suitable as she is mentioned at the target: Succession to the British throne#Current line of succession, per PamD. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hereford

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about an actor, and added a reference to his employer's website; but cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources, and do not think he meets WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 13:36, 11 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!} 07:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an article for deletion - definitely meets the criteria for actor. Multiple credits in major film and tv shows. 2600:1700:4640:E70:ECCA:5D5:421E:ECB4 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "employer". Henry is an established actor having been on several films and TV shows as referenced in IMDB and trade magazines. There is no reason this page would be deleted. Thefilmsorcerer (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004

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

As far as I can tell, this law has virtually no coverage anywhere. Fails WP:GNG completely. Only references are primary sources. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:48, 10 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!} 07:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. The Act, also called CAICE, has significant coverage in many books and periodical articles in Google Books, Google Scholar, Internet Archive and HeinOnline. There is significant commentary on the Act in Halsbury's Statutes and Current Law Statutes [20]. That commentary, some of which is already cited in the article, is certainly an independent secondary source. This Act is, amongst other things, the law relating to community interest companies (CICs), which law is Part 2 of this Act, and the same thing as this Act. Accordingly, there are entire books about this Act: [21] ("Law . . . of Community Interest Companies"), and many entire periodical articles about this Act. James500 (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the citations cover this specific act, they only seem to cover the more general field Community Interest Companies and seem to only mention this act in passing as a source for some of the information about the field. WP:GNG requires coverage, not citation. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Halsbury and Current Law are entirely about this Act, and they are a commentary on the Act. Likewise Bishop's book contains extensive commentary on the Act. An Act is not a source of information. An Act is the law. To use your terminology, the Act is "the field". Those sources, and the many other books are not just "citations". You might as well claim that a book review was "just a citation" of the book being reviewed. James500 (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more importantly, both Halsbury and Current Law (and other sources) also include extensive commentary on Parts 1 and 3 of the Act, which have nothing to do with CICs. So this article is not redundant to the article on CICs. Even Part 2 of the Act is not completely redundant to the topic of CICs generally (at least as opposed to the law of CICs), since that topic includes all non-legal aspects of CICs (such as the companies themselves, statistical information about them, and the economic and social implications of them). Part 2 is independently notable of CICs generally when you consider the number of non-legal sources that discuss CICs. James500 (talk) 01:52, 20 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!} 23:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Corkran

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

No evidence of any notability. Being a member of the nobility does not equate to notability. Sources show that he lived , that he had a family and worked as a coutier to a minor royal and that he died, but nothing beyond that. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and United Kingdom. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably a thoroughly nice gentleman, but absolutely nothing to say about him, no sign of notability. Merely having a genealogy and existing as a courtier on the fringes of the UK's rather enormous royal family doesn't confer notability. Elemimele (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A knighthood very clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Nobody with a confirmed knighthood has ever been deleted. He also has an obituary, albeit a short one, in a major national newspaper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all knighthoods are equal. KCVO wasn't conferred as a significant honour for doing anything in particular, it was a knighthood given in recognition of service to the monarch, basically an automatic consequence of his job, a high-society version of receiving a carriage clock when you retired as a station-master. Anyone appointed equerry to Beatrice would have received this title, irrespective of what they did. We should therefore focus on whether the job is wikipedia-notable. Basically if we have nothing to say about an equerry except that they existed, it's hard to justify an article. In Corkran's case, even his obituary, which is contemporary and presumably written by someone with the information at their fingertips, struggles to say anything about him beyond that he went to school. In terms of deleting knights, we've converted consorts of monarchs to redirects based on the fact their notability, like Corkran's, is only inherited.

It's also a very bad sign that the article is almost entirely genealogy, spending longer talking about his parents and offspring than it does about him himself. Elemimele (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all knighthoods are equal. Indeed. KCVO is two levels above Knight Bachelor, the lowest level of knighthood! Essentially claiming it's not a real knighthood is purely your POV. Claiming his notability is inherited is patently ridiculous. He isn't notable for being married to someone notable; he received his knighthood for his achievements and service just like any other knight. Anyone appointed equerry to Beatrice would have received this title, irrespective of what they did. No they wouldn't. He was her comptroller and treasurer, the head of her household, not just her equerry. Like it or not, these people held highly influential and notable positions in the United Kingdom, hence their knighthoods. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relationship between levels of honours, and Wikipedia notability, is rather complicated. For example, a British Empire Medal is, in honours terms, one of the lowest, but it is never awarded as a retirement present, always for doing something fairly outstanding. It is often awarded to quite ordinary people who have made themselves extraordinary by their activities, which means it's often a sign of Wikipedia notability. An OBE or MBE, on the other hand, is higher, but is often given as a retirement present to senior civil figures, and therefore (sometimes) reflects merely that they had a certain job. As a sign of Wikipedia notability, it needs to be interpreted with context.

Again, the whole system is coloured with an inclination to give an award at a level depending on the social status of the recipient (which isn't something we need to reflect in Wikipedia; we're interested in what the person did). So, for example, if a university professor or academic stands out from the crowd, he will get a MBE or OBE (for example Alison Mary Smith), while a research assistant in the same field (for example Anne Edwards (botanist)), if they stand out from the crowd (which is much less likely, harder to do, and more notable when it's achieved!), they will get a British Empire medal.

In Corkran's case, of course he got a high grade of knighthood, because he was working with a high grade of nobility.

My case against an article on Corkran is simply that we have no source whatsoever to say that he did anything whatsoever (except be an equerry who went to school). What's the point in an article? Elemimele (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that grades of honours often depended, and to an extent still depend, on grade of job (e.g. traditionally BEM for an NCO, MBE for a junior or warrant officer, OBE for a field officer, CBE for a colonel or brigadier, KBE for a general officer). However, it is also true that those who got higher honours were also far more prominent by the very nature of the grade of their job, so I don't think this is an especially valid argument. I think it is very hard to argue that anyone with an honour at the level of companion/commander or knight/dame is not notable. It is odd for Wikipedia to say that people are not notable when the British government considers they are; even though we are not bound by government decrees, it is simple common sense that anyone awarded this level of honour is notable in the real world and should therefore be considered notable by Wikipedia, which, for crying out loud, considers many teenage Youtubers to be notable just because they have a significant internet presence! For obvious reasons, Sir Victor did not have, but that does not mean he was not a notable person in his day and his field, which was royal administration. It is not our place to decide that one field of endeavour is less notable than another.

Incidentally, he didn't get his KCVO as a "retirement present"; he was knighted six years before he retired and was awarded the CVO, which would also make him notable under ANYBIO, 22 years before that for being private secretary and comptroller of the household to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. And the BEM has very often been awarded as a "retirement present" after a long career of service just like any other honour; that doesn't, however, make it any less significant, as it does indeed recognise a long and distinguished career in the person's chosen field. We do not generally consider that a BEM (or MBE, OBE, RVM, MVO or LVO) meets ANYBIO simply because for the most part, with certain exceptions such as sportspeople, actors, TV presenters, etc, recipients are in careers or at grades where they do not tend to register on notability scales. That is not the case with CBEs or higher, as these are usually awarded to senior people who make a significant mark on society, even though they may not figure greatly on the internet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On your User Page, you say "I do not believe that Wikipedia should feature articles about completely non-notable people". That is surely the case here: what did this person, today completely forgotten by everyone apart from relatives, do to make him notable? I would go for Delete. Athel cb (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning ordinary people with no claim to notability. A KCVO, an entry in Who's Who and an obit in The Times are all claims to notability. No knight or recipient of a CVO is non-notable by definition. Why do you think people receive honours? For doing nothing notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 17 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!} 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: definitely notable, has one source which makes it KEEP. I’m participating here because non living person’s article is being created here with an image royal family, with source I can’t find any reason why it should be deleted. AnkkAnkur (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete WP:ANYBIO does not override GNG: "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The sourcing demonstrates trivial mentions, not significant coverage. Take this "Morning's Gossip" from the Daily Mirror for example. The entirety of the relevant part of this source is one sentence "Mr Victor Cochrane has arrived at Osborne Cottage in attendance on the Princess" this is plainly not the sourcing required to demonstrate notability. Simply being a servant to a British royal does not mean you inherit notability. AusLondonder (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, WP:INHERITED does not apply (and note it's only an essay in any case). He is not notable for anything inherited from anyone else but for the achievements that gave him a CVO and then a KCVO, which are only awarded to people who are already notable. I do wish people would stop citing the wrong thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If that's the case that these awards are only awarded to "already notable" people rather than favourite servants then we need to see the GNG-level coverage to prove that. I will happily change my mind if I see something better than one line mentions in gossip columns. AusLondonder (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I entirely agree that there unfortunately isn't much coverage (maybe if the internet had been around when he was alive there would have been a lot more!), but I also can't believe that anyone could seriously claim that someone with a CVO and KCVO (awarded in his case for holding two entirely different posts, incidentally; the CVO was awarded to him before he was a courtier) was not notable. It should be self-evident that these high honours are not randomly distributed to nobodies for doing nothing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or draftify - Look, we're doing this wrong, and on the face of it the nom. has a point. The page has already improved since the nomination, but it is not a clear WP:HEY because the sources being used are primary sources. If your project is the history of Corkran, this would be a great start. But we are not writing histories, we are writing an encyclopaedia, and you need to find the secondary sources that already exist and build the page from there. Writing a page from primary sources is original research. You are doing history, not an encyclopaedia. Where are these secondary sources? I don't know. I don't see them, and I did not find them in initial searches. And for that reason this should be a delete. Publish the history and you can definitely have a page, but until someone does that, this is pretty iffy. But here's why I am making a weak case to keep this article: because this is a subject that might well elicit history articles - perhaps has already done so. There is certainly plenty in primary sources, and the shortcuts to assess notability (has a knighthood) are far from perfect, but not irrelevant. And if this were the state of the page after months of work, I would be searching hard for a redirect target at this point, on the basis that searches have failed. But, in fact, this page is week old and was nominated less than a day after it was started. No discussion on the talk page. WP:DEMOLISH applies. If I had my way, I would want this closed as "no consensus" to give the page creator a couple of months to knock this into shape before it can be renominated. Perhaps I should bold "draftify" instead (ETA, I bolded both), but ultimately it is a historical subject, a figure that we certainly might expect to see treated by historians (if not thoroughly nor directly) and a darn sight more likely to be notable than a lot of pages that we seem to want to keep. Keep iit or draftify it, but don't delete it. At least, not until we can see the final shape of it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this some more and in the light of Rupples' additional comments, I don't think I can justify keep. But my comments about DEMOLISH remain, and think we should draftify this. That is not merely backdoor deletion. It gives the creator a chance to develop this with secondary sources if any exist, and if they don't, it gives them an easy route to transfer some content to Princess Beatrice as appropriate. It is a new page, and draft space is meant for such incubation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some thoughtful arguments put forward for both keep and delete. My search found lots of mentions in newspapers stating he accompanied notable people at events plus notices of his marriage. There's also newspaper obituaries, basically stating positions held. No entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography though, which to my mind weighs against notabilty despite the honours received. I also note that Corkran despite serving Princess Beatrice for 25 years isn't mentioned in that featured article, slightly strange, but not a determining factor. Overall neutral, although the article content, which is a list of roles and wikilinked name-drops does leave some doubt as to whether notability has or can be established. Rupples (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that only a small minority of people have entries in the DNB. The vast majority of people we have articles on do not. The vast majority of people with knighthoods do not. He does, of course, have an entry in Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You must know that WP:WHOSWHO is a deprecated source and does not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It's been deprecated as a source for information because its entries are self-authored (although it is fair to say that most of its entries are accurate, so this is probably a little unfair). However, as you must know, that is separate from establishing notability, since those included are selected by its staff on the basis of their notability and neither apply nor pay to be included. Almost all people with honours at this level are included. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. I would have thought Corkran would at least be mentioned in this book, given the length of his service to Princess Beatrice: The Shy Princess: The Life of Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice, the Youngest Daughter and Constant Companion of Queen Victoria by David Duff [22]. A search of the copy on Internet Archive, has no mention of him in this biography, which surely adds to doubts over Corkran's notability. Rupples (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep this demonstrates again that he simply wasn't a notable individual, even in his time. Knighthoods are routinely awarded to royal aides and that does not mean they get a notability free pass. AusLondonder (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have zero PAG-based justification for this topic being a standalone article other than the debunked assertion that simply receiving some honor corresponds to coverage sufficient to meet N. Zero IRS SIGCOV sources have been identified, and obviously being "selected" for inclusion in an unreliable source counts for absolutely nothing. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has the British Newspaper Archive been checked? I can check tomorrow if this is not already closed by then. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters (2004 film)

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

Completely unsourced article about a short film. The attempted notability claim here is that it won an award at a minor film festival, but WP:NFILM does not just indiscriminately accept every single film festival award on earth as a notability-locking award -- that only goes to major internationally prominent film festivals such as Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto or Sundance whose awards get broadly reported by the media as news, because even the award itself has to meet the notability criteria for awards before it can make its winners notable for winning it. But the award claim here is unsourced, and the article isn't citing any other sources for anything else either. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything. It's entirely possible that there are sources that aren't online, but I can't really find anything to firmly argue that either. That leaves us with the sole claim of this winning an award at BUFF. I would argue that the award would give the film some notability, just not enough to keep on that basis alone. BUFF is a notable film festival, but not notable or major enough to be on the level that is expected of the award criteria for NFILM. It's not a slam against BUFF - most film festivals aren't at that level. If someone can produce a couple of good sources (as well as one for the award) then I'm open to changing my opinion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are reviews from The Guardian and Film Threat [23] [24]. Although both of the other sources are direct interviews, the Film Threat source goes into detail about the film's reception and what the director feels he should change if he had the chance to retake the film. What do you think about the new sourcing @Bearcat: @ReaderofthePack:? DareshMohan (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely on the right track, but I'd still need to see proper reliable sourcing (i.e. not the self-published website of the film's own distributor) for the award claims before I was prepared to withdraw this from discussion entirely — an award has to be one that gets covered by the media (i.e. passes GNG in its own right) in order to gain the privilege of making its winners notable for winning it, so award wins have to be sourced to media coverage to prove that the award is notable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 16 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!} 22:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Audience award at a film festival doesn't seem to meet film notability. The rest seems to be local coverage, of a hometown hero-type coverage. I don't see anything written about this short film otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Couldn't source the audience award. Sourced the other award based on [25]. @Oaktree b: @Bearcat: If two reviews (the Guardian one is a capsule review) doesn't add notability, then this article can be deleted. DareshMohan (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reliable source either. We need to see real media, not blogs. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my delete vote. I suppose if pressed I'd consider this a week keep based on the two reviews, but I'm not really satisfied enough to say that officially. Here's my argument as to why I removed the delete:

So far, there's no definitive judgment based on review length. The reason why is that review length doesn't automatically mean that something is of good or bad quality. Every time someone tries, the argument centers back on one central point: what makes a review a review is that the journalist forms an opinion or judgment on the film, which can be done in just a few sentences. It doesn't help that there are lengthier reviews out there that tend to discuss general things (or navel gaze) for a few paragraphs, then use the final one to give the actual opinion/judgment. There's also the outlet to consider, because a capsule review from a nationally known paper like The Guardian is going to be more impressive than if my local paper, which has at most half the circulation of TG, were to review the same short film. It's not a knock against my local paper, just that the higher circulation means that TG is presumably going to be more discerning because they have a larger audience. (IE, more mainstream publications are more likely to focus on mainstream stuff whereas a smaller paper could review something off the wall because there's potentially less red tape and so on.)

It's pretty rare that short films get reviews at all and when they do, the length is usually short because they're going to be watching it with a batch of other stuff at a film festival or packaged with a full-length movie. It's rare that a short film is the sole focus, because there's a bit of risk in covering short films.

So my next focus then is whether or not the article will be anything other than a paragraph of content. I do see two interviews on there and while sure, they're primary, they can still be used to expand the article and give it at least somewhat more encyclopedic value. We could probably improve the production section to be more than a big quote and we could also add a release section. I see that it was given a re-release at a 2020 film festival, the Lyon Festival Hallucinations Collectives, so that's definitely something. I suppose that last bit could qualify as a bit of notability but one would need to find sourcing and honestly, I never feel comfortable arguing for a keep that way unless it's at a very notable festival or the institution holding the festival or retrospective are very notable. This is close, but it still feels pretty weak. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the director notable? A good alternative might be to create an article for the director and summarize this there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he has an article: Robert Morgan (filmmaker). Maybe just summarize the release and production there? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've greatly improved the article. It looks fairly proper now. I wouldn't mind this being kept. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:37, 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!} 23:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All in all, coverage and nomination seem to show it might be notable. A redirect to the director seems warranted anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:01, 25 April 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 no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Book Collective

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

The page may not meet Wikipedia's notability; perhaps - redirect to Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs BoraVoro (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Museums and libraries, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @BoraVoro for your suggestion to delete this page. Maybe to share some details around why I thought it might be good to have a separate page on the Open Book Collective - this Open Access platform and community has been developed out of the Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs project, but as the COPIM project has ended and the Open Book Collective itself has matured and now is its own legal entity, I thought it might make more sense to have a separate entry for that initiative. I agree that the current state of the page is still rudimentary, but my hope is that this will be soo growing to include more detailed information around key collaborations, etc. in the space of non-profit OA book publishing, so would be grateful if this could be given space here on Wikipedia going forward. Thanks so much for your consideration, and all best, Flavoursofopen (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you @Flavoursofopen for your passion and work. I'm not entirely in favor of deletion at this point. I am open to changing or withdrawing my vote. BoraVoro (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added a stub tag to the page. Looking over the coverage of the Open Book Collective on the web, it appears notable enough but the article is just starting and does need work. In this case we should follow Wikipedia's policy of improving an article rather than deleting it.WP:EDITING Myotus (talk) 19:04, 10 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) 14:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, fails WP:NGO. I cannot find any sourcing that is fully independent of the organizaiton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The OBC is a full UK-registered Charity, see https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/5219053 Flavoursofopen (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flavoursofopen That does not prove notability Mach61 04:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, apologies, I misunderstood - there are indeed more independent sources, e.g.
https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2023/11/open-book-collective-collective-path-toward-an-open-and-sustainable-monograph-future/

https://subscriptionsmanager.jisc.ac.uk/catalogue/2840

Flavoursofopen (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flavoursofopen The University of California webpage was written by a Chair for the OBC, so it isn't independent. Webpage #2 is literally selling a subscription to the OBC. Mach61 16:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mach61, thanks for this - and apologies again, but your points for me quickly raise another, more substantial issue - namely what is actually meant by "independence" here ... i.e. how far removed from an institution do you have to be to count as "independent"?

Would e.g. this source [1](https://open-access.network/services/news/artikel/finanzielle-unterstuetzung-fuer-open-access-buecher) count as "independent"? Would official statements of the OBC's international funders or evolving network of universities, infrastructures, etc - all of thems independent, well-recognised entities - suffice, would research articles such as [2](https://journal.dbs.ie/index.php/dbs/article/view/119/65), mentioning the OBC? Like, what counts as enough?

As an aside, for me it's quite frustrating that a not-for-profit charity such as the Open Book Collective that is clearly working to do the same for OA books as Wikipedia does for encyclopedic knowledge - to remove barriers to access to knowledge overall - and with similar open mission & values is being sidelined by such artifically-erected barriers ... and I see the argument for due process etc. but again, when is enough? Flavoursofopen (talk) 14:35, 25 April 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamini Aiyar

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable tag since 2012, most references are WP:PSTS or WP:SPS. May be in the news recently due to stepping down as CEO, but otherwise not notable. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Organizations, Delhi, and United Kingdom. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's the head of Centre for Policy Research; she seems to qualify under WP:NPROF.— Moriwen (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No longer the head. Plus WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 16:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That she is no longer the head doesn't subtract any notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 15:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Google News search whose timeframe ends before her recent resignation: [26]. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 1 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) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:43, 12 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, Shadow311 (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of refs for this. Desertarun (talk) 15:43, 19 April 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

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

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

Redirects

Templates

England

Ben Obese-Jecty

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

Candidates for UK Parliament are not automatically notable. Similarly, writing a few newspaper articles also does not confer notability. Propose deleting and if he is successful in his campaign, it would be appropriate to make a page once he is elected. Drerac (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Cleo Cooper (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Burrell

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP; subject made one pro appearance. I found a couple sentences of coverage here and not much else. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:02, 26 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) 19:02, 26 April 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]

Tristan Cousins

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; everything else seems to lack any notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:30, 25 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) 14:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradfield Abbey

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

Fails notability, the one reliable source Is the one referenced on the page which makes it clear the charter refering to the abbey having been built is probably fraudulent. I can find no other historical source that references any abbey existing in Bradfield. Tim Landy (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Christianity, and England. Tim Landy (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Bradfield, Berkshire. I can't find anything on Heritage Gateway on this. There is a mention here but otherwise I can't fine anything significant. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:07, 25 April 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]

John Ratcliff (producer)

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO, and I do not believe being a producer for a notable band is an automatic WP:NMUSIC pass either. I could not locate sources with substantial coverage of Ratcliff. All sources cover him only peripherally, as a producer for a-Ha. The article is now primarily an autobiography. Would accept a redirect to a-Ha as an alternative to deletion. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and United Kingdom. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Journalism, Television, Advertising, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree that REDIRECT to a-Ha is appropriate. Most sources are primary references. The only third party references are more about a-Ha with this subject being mentioned tangentially. Otherwise, this article seems more promotional than anything else. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trés Hanley

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

Strong WP:COI vibes; the article creator has (mostly) only edited this article over a period of 14 years, also uploaded the two pictures as "own work" that are in the article. Sources are the subject's personal website and two sources that don't meet WP:RS. Lots of unsourced cruft. A search for more RS reveals lots of user-generated content, which fits the pattern. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Television, Theatre, England, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've removed most of the cruft, including an uncited and frankly ridiculous assertion that she was the first American ever to play Polly in A Beggar's Opera. IBDB lists 7 productions on Broadway alone. Having gotten rid of all that, it appears that some of her roles were more than just bit parts, but if no one can find sufficient press coverage, she would not be considered Notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The production was 1993 at London's Canazzaro Park. Miss Hanley did TV interviews in which it was stated several times that she was the first american to play the role. The Director was Peter Benedict. Many of the parks productions are not listed in IBDB even to this day. Yet they are listed with the West End summer limited run productions. PleeUK (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several parks productions - Holland Park, Regents and Cannazaro London summer theatre associated with the West End in the 90s. Which roles were bit parts? Care to be specific? If you watch any of the shows that she has been in they are all featured roles or principle roles. Is this a legit or personal attempt on her work? PleeUK (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions: (1) do you have reliable secondary sources to back up these statements? (2) Do you have a WP:COI with Hanley? I ask because most of your edits are to this article, and you seem to have a knowledge of her career that sources do not. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all her works are also verifiable on IMDB. There are various article that were online that may be dead links now. I have met her in the past twice. But cannot say I am a friend. I do find Wiki confusing and so If I did not do something correct I apologize. PleeUK (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say you "cannot say I am a friend" - but in this edit, you say "You are looking to delete my friends page." Let's continue this tangent on your talk page. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have said, I do not know her personally but I consider her a friend. I have followed her on social media and she is my friend there. You people here are very technical. Not all as familiar with the technical workings here.

You also make many false statements here saying her roles were bit parts when her name is on poster for movie mouth to mouth. And she has been lead or featured. Maybe you are experts on how to use wikipedia and I am not. I did apologize for it, but you do not have your facts on the actress correct. I was making an intervention on keep her page that's all. You do what you need to do. Thank you. PleeUK (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provide citations to the articles in your scrapbook, as described below and on your own Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:PleeUK, Wikipedia does not accept IMDB as a WP:reliable source, because it is user-generated, so you need to cite reviews or articles from reputable publishers, like newspapers, about each production, show and film in which she appeared. You can't just say "she got press coverage" for something, you need to cite the exact article, author name, page number or URL, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a scrap book with information but i cannot track it to the periodicals online today. This is from over 20 yrs ago not now all online. PleeUK (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be online. Here is how you can succeed: We need the name of the publication, the title and date of the article or book, the name of the author and the page number on which the information appeared. Post those things on the article's Talk page, and also type out the exact text from the article that verifies a statement made in Henley's article, so that I and other editors can see it, and if it does verify WP:NOTEWORTHY facts about her from a WP:RS, then I can add an appropriate cite to her Wikipedia entry. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say IMDB is user generated but not all most of it is supplied from the tv or film compamies. You can watch the shows and see these actors in the roles. So how is this not legit? PleeUK (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On your talk page, Fred Zepelin has posted the answer to your question. But be assured that it is not an acceptable source, and you will not succeed by arguing about that. Instead, follow the procedure that I outlined for you above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Leicester and Leinster

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

There is no real rivalry between these two sides, with no WP:GNG coverage of the rivalry, just a collection of stats with violates WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. Similar discussions such as this and this have shown a clear consensus on these sorts of articles. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, Ireland, and England. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Yasutake

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

Reviewed during NPP. Combination of wp Notability events and wp:not news. Story of a lady who died and the family kept the body in the house. Two of the three sources were the news reports on it the third says that is is providing the Wikipedia data on the topic. Tagged by others for sources and notability since December. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Japan, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should really be an article about the "death of Rina Yasutake". As a person, she isn't notable, the circumstances surrounding her demise seem to be, there are at least 4 BBC stories that pop up in Gnews and some in other news outlets... But I'm not really sure that is enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even if you changed it to an article about her death, one could argue that all the family members are living persons and are thus entitled to WP:BLP protections. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability for the person, the events surrounding her demise could perhaps be written NPOV, but I don't see enough sourcing to do so. A story could be told I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable death, not heard of it until this AfD.

SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 26 April 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]

Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln

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

This congregation has no notability. St Helen's Church, Lincoln is grade II* listed and rightly has a separate article; Holy Cross Church has no claim to notability, and nor does the joint congregation which worships at the two churches. A merge proposal template was removed from the St Helen's article with no explanation, after a brief discussion of the proposed merge (propose, oppose from creator of both the articles, one further comment from proposer). I considered just redirecting this article to St Helen's but bring it here to get further eyes on the discussion. A Redirect to St Helen's Church, Lincoln would be my preferred outcome from this AfD. PamD 07:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. PamD 07:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to St Helen's Church, Lincoln or just redirect. There is mergeable content. The congregation are not notable for an article, per nom., but the joint use of this and another church by a single congregation is worth mention on the merge target page - it is the current use of this church. It is a small merge, but a merge nonetheless. The merge discussion has the page creator arguing for the notability of Holy Cross. I don't think those arguments pass muster, but they are not a reason to keep this page which is specifically about the joint congregation. A Holy Cross church article could be created although my view is that it would not meet notability requirements and should not be attempted without sufficient reliable secondary sourcing. I didn't see where the merge header was removed, but it clearly lacked visibility, so the discussion here is appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy The article on St Helen's already includes "The church is joined with the nearby Holy Cross Church as the "Congregation of Holy Cross and St Helen's".", with a link to the parish website. Is that enough? The merge header was removed earlier today with the uninformative edit summary "Slight tweaks". PamD 09:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see it now. Yes, on the basis the information is already there, I have unbolded my merge and bolded redirect instead in this edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree the two churches are linked and can be covered in St Helen's Church, Lincoln. There isn't a church called Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln, so that title as a redirect may be of limited use. For readers to find content on Holy Cross it would need a redirect page, titled "Holy Cross Church, Boultham" or such like. The main discussion point regarding a merge is whether there should be an infobox for each church, just for one of the churches or a combined one. Found brief local news reports on Holy Cross's opening in 1940, which can be used for additional factual content. None of the references currently in the article count towards notability and so far I haven't found feature length coverage. Rupples (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that one article is sufficient to cover both churches however it is accomplished. Esemgee (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Holy Cross church needs to be covered at all, except perhaps in a list of churches in Lincoln. It appears to have no claim to notability. PamD 13:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Cross is mentioned in Boultham and Wikiproject UKGEOG content guidelines for settlements say to note churches within their locality WP:UKTOWNS#Religious sites — it doesn't state the church has to be notable for inclusion. Rupples (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Churches mentioned in settlement articles don't have to have their own article. Maybe this article should be renamed and redirected to St Helen's Church. Esemgee (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Take it you mean 'redirect' rather than 'article' as the closing word in the first sentence?~~ Yes, agree with a retitle, and redirect to St Helen's but I've seen an admin state not to do this before the AfD closes. Suppose we'd recommend redirect under the current title then rename the redirect page. Rupples (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC). Strike, maybe misread. Rupples (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established for this church. The title of this article "Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln" is inaccurate and misleading. It leads one to think it's the name of a single church building. The website for the church is Boulton Parish and the home page begins The Congregation at Holy Cross and St. Helen's. We already have an article St Helen's Church, Lincoln where reliably sourced detail on Holy Cross can be added. It's simpler to delete this, add a section to St Helen's about Holy Cross and create a redirect page, (suggest Holy Cross, Boultham) than redirect this article's rather nonsensical title. Rupples (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Well (novel)

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

Non notable book, fails WP:NBOOK. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:31, 22 April 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) 01:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Series Adventures per WP:ATD. Little or no sourced content to merge. No reviews in WP:LIBRARY or ISFDB. The review cited in the article is self-published. Jfire (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Mellor

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

Unref BLP; I couldn't find sources to establish she can meet WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Clouston

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

As noted in WP:NPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider district or parish councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage. Likewise, being a candidate for national office doesn't normally meet WP:NPOL, absent substantial coverage in secondary sources, and I can find only routine local press coverage. He has written for and been interviewed by some notable media, but those are WP:PRIMARY sources, and his written work doesn't yet meet WP:NAUTHOR. Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON, unless he wins a parliamentary seat in the upcoming general election. Restoring the redirect would be fine as an alternative to deletion, but I've brought it here for discussion rather than WP:BOLDly redirecting. Wikishovel (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, United Kingdom, and England. Wikishovel (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of his activities demonstrate much notability, from leading a minor party to serving as a councillor. Sourcing is not great, mostly primary sources, such as election results and his own tweets. Can't find much better. AusLondonder (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present)#Leaders if notability cannot be established at this point in time. May pick up coverage in the forthcoming general election. Rupples (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He hasn't held office at any level that would confer "inherent" notability under NPOL, but the article is referenced almost entirely to primary and unreliable sources and thus fails to get him over WP:GNG instead of having to pass NPOL. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but just being a candidate is not enough to already get him an article now. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophisticated Games

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Pantano

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

The subject is a poet, translator and academic. He is not sufficiently notable in any of those fields for Wikipedia inclusion. As explained on the article's Talk page, he has not been the recipient of any literary prize, shortlisting or other distinction. Critical commentary in independent secondary sources has amounted to just one newspaper review and one literary journal review of one poetry collection (published in 2010). Other coverage has been in web interviews etc, or self-generated. There is a strong suspicion that a major contributor to the article has been the subject himself, or someone closely associated with him. Previous versions of the article have included exaggerated claims (e.g. about his academic qualifications) that other editors have tried to correct, often with the misleading information being reinstated. The suspicion is that the article is being used as a tool of self-aggrandizement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosech (talk • contribs) 00:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Authors, Poetry, Switzerland, England, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete* I see bread and butter translation work (not enough for a Wiki page, but almost nothing in terms of sustained, independent secondary analysis of output (such as reviews in publications entirely independent with their own established editorship). Wiki had already rated this a Low Importance page. Coverage of their work is extremely small and the talk page reports Cosech’s extensive efforts to find it. The points about erroneous edits to qualifications by the proposer check out.

80.95.196.234 (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a clearly self-promotional article about a non-notable translator, poet, and associate professor (not a full professor, not a PhD). Does not rise to prominence or notability in any of those fields. Article creator, through IPs and sockpuppets, has done nothing else on Wikipedia besides this plus an article on the main poet he has translated. Persingo (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add to the above, this is probably an autobiography, as it was started by an anonymous account tracing to the same time and place that the subject was a student back in 2005 in Tampa. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting that the author of that initial 2005 article called Pantano "award winning", though I have found no record of Pantano winning any award either before or since. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the article has been a 20 year vanity project by the author himself, and has only escaped scrutiny for so long because he is so little known. Cosech (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barlaston Parish Council

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

Lowest-level local government authority in England - there are more than 10,000 parish councils and they are rarely notable. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. No secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Barlaston I agree small parish councils generally don't need separate articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The parish council is already covered at Barlaston, so there's nothing to merge from what I can see. AusLondonder (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rogan

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

This article has been tagged as not establishing notability since 2017, apparently still unresolved. -- Beland (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and News media. Beland (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, England, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of independent coverage other than possibly regarding one single event. Persingo (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject, a blogger, fails WP:GNG. Most sources are primary, e.g. this or routine listings. Some are even without pulse, e.g. this.-The Gnome (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iulia and Delia

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

A pair of rich sisters went hiking, paid a guy to write their biography. Not much to discuss here. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Women, Finance, Technology, France, Romania, England, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NCLIMBER there is zero mention of these people in any mainline climbing media, and yet their main notability claim is climbing. They have tried to get an article here before but it was declined, but I see they have returned with a much higher quality article (from a production point of view) which I suspect is a professional WP:UPE to 'manufacture' notability where there is none. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the article's creator User:CharlesBNB has now been blocked as a UPE, along with several other linked accounts, and their other UPE articles are being deleted. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing notable about twins climbing mountains. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They spent a lot of money to climb some standard high elevation routes, but they are not notable mountaineers. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCLIMBER and the sources do not substantiate a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of rich people climb mountains. Lots of rich people pay other people to make Wikipedia articles on them, apparently. Samoht27 (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Winston

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

Zero inline sources in entire article, no evidence of significant notability online. The article is of significant length, but there are few sources and none inline. 2003 LN 6 05:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 2003 LN 6 05:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Highly promotional and is practically a list of accomplishments without sourcing. Shadow311 (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are hundreds of reviews of his work, and he has directed and/or choreographed numerous West End musicals. Obviously, no one did the research to add references to this article, but that is not a justification for deletion at AfD. I agree that the massive list of credits should be severely culled, but that is a task for another day. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strong news coverage exists as stated by Ssilvers. He seems to have some awards as well. IMO, it should not have been nominated. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely meets WP:GNG although article needs clean up. Orange sticker (talk) 10:49, 25 April 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]

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 [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. 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]

Centre for India & Global Business

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

nn. No independent sources - Altenmann >talk 15:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, India, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 14:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Tasca (professor)

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

Previously deleted and salted as Paolo Tasca * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Computing, Italy, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete ~~Delete~~ -- I don't have access to the deleted versions of the article, but since it has been deleted and salted, the level of improvement to notability needs to be higher than typical to keep, and I don't see a WP:PROF pass here that would warrant it. But UCL is a significant university, so I don't want to be too hasty -- salting seems to me to be primarily based on a "wasting the community's time" basis and not on a "this person couldn't possibly be notable" one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to weak delete by Mikejisuzu's arguments, but nothing warrants speedy keep by a long shot. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that he's actually only an associate professor, not a full professor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep -- Paolo Tasca is much more notable now in 2024, with multiple publications and third-party media references. Right now Tasca has several citations in triple digits. I'd argue that notability itself has increased significantly since the last deletion.

Given the higher requirement for notability, Tasca should have at least one well-cited multiple author work and others in double digits. From a quick look at Google Scholar, he has 6 works in triple-digit citations and more than 20 with double-digit citations. It looks like he has also grown in notability from a media perspective at least regards to reliable sources such as Euronews, and Project Syndicate. [34] As a result, Tasca clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NPROF notability criteria. Mikejisuzu (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever gave you the idea that that is enough citations in the very highly-cited field of computer science? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a start the title is a lie, as he's an associate professor, not a professor. Why do people involved with blockchain always seem to lie like this? Exaggeration is a sign of immaturity, not strength. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on notability, encyclopedic relevance, academic publications, positions, and so on - In response to Phil's and Necrothesp's comments: Paolo Tasca's work is multidisciplinary, and he also does a lot of work in economics. Please check Google Scholar for his many dozens of academic publications. This is certainly enough to establish basic notability. (Google Scholar)

He also has an ORCID profile where dozens of published works are listed. (ORCID)

And if that's not enough, there's an official UCL profile as well with additional information. (UCL page) UCL is one of the top universities in the UK and Europe, equivalent to an Ivy League-type institution. We can't just delete UCL, or Yale, professors with many dozens of publications unless we can demonstrate solid reasons for why they absolutely don't fit into the scope of this online encyclopedia. This is definitely a serious academic, not some self-promoting "motivational speaker" or "life coach."

There are plenty of academics out there who used to be non-notable, but have since become much more notable due to their recent extensive publications, research, and presentations. Tasca would certainly be one of them. Simply having a previous deletion or two should not prevent the subject from being permanently barred from eventually having a Wikipedia article even after the subject has eventually attained sufficient notability. I understand that the nominator thinks that Tasca had been deleted before and hence would like to reconsider whether or not the article should remain deleted. Nevertheless, by now, I strongly believe that his notability and encyclopedic relevance has greatly increased, and he is certainly worth including on Wikipedia now. This article is now certainly useful and relevant for encyclopedia readers, which is what Wikipedia is meant for.

I would also really like to see more experienced users vote on this issue, particularly @Cunard: and others.

As for Tasca being an "associate professor"? I'm not sure who created the page and why they decided on "(professor)", but it certainly seems fair enough to me. The article creator didn't try to put "(full professor)." A professor is a professor, whether he or she is an full, associate, assistant, or adjunct professor. Thus, "(professor)" is a fair an accurate description, and I think it's unfair to call out the article creator for inaccurately describing the subject and picking on whether Tasca is a full or associate professor.

I hope that I have laid out a strong case for why Paolo Tasca should be a strong keep and speedy keep. Mikejisuzu (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Associate and assistant professors are types of non-professor, not of professor. "Full professor" is an American term, but the subject has no connection with America. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A professor is a professor, whether he or she is an full, associate, assistant, or adjunct professor. No they're not. In the UK, these people used to be (and in many universities are still) called lecturers, senior lecturers and readers, not professors. An associate or assistant professor who called themselves or insisted on being addressed as "professor" would still be looked on askance, because they have no right to that title. The use of "professor" as a synonym for "academic" is an Americanism, pure and simple. Elsewhere, the unqualified "professor" only refers to someone who holds a chair. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Trade Exchange

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

Article was created evading a salting. No real evidence of notability - none of the sources provide in-depth, independent coverage * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP/WP:SIRS. On WP:LIBRARY all available sources are press releases, like those already representing most of the sources in the article. Jfire (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wallflower (band)

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

Unreferenced article since 2011. Searching for refs is difficult as there is a more successful band called "The Wallflowers", but even after including band members names into the search it seems like they received no coverage. Nothing in the article writeup suggests Wikipedia notability. InDimensional (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m the original article author. Happy to have article deleted. Band came to an end in 1998 with little notable activity.

(talk) 13:20, 13 April 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) 11:07, 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!} 06:31, 20 April 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]
Redirect into Kennedys Law into which Gates was dissolved. Why wasn't this suggested upfront? gidonb (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Park Harriers and Tower Hamlets Athletics Club

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

Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have remotely enough coverage here to meet NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big John @ Breakfast

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

There's nothing to suggest that this radio morning show is notable over and above the station on which it appears. Anything that can be sourced can be merged to the article on Hallam FM, but I can't find anything out there that is independent SIGCOV for this show itself. Flip Format (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A show which has on air for 24 years, and has won many industry awards, is clearly notable. Rillington (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you need to go back and look at WP:GNG and read how Wikipedia defines "notability". Several of your comments are along these lines - it's a broadcasting radio station, so it's notable; it's been on the air for years, so it's notable. These assertions don't tie in with the actual guideline, which is that the subject has to have had "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" that are "independent of the subject". Before nominating, I look for this in various sources, and if I've nominated something, it's because I've been unable to find it during my own research. In other cases, I find coverage and add it to flesh out an article that's otherwise unsourced. If others (including you) can find WP:SIGCOV for the subject of an article I've nominated, then that's great, but just asserting "it's notable" carries little weight. I haven't found anything for Big John @ Breakfast other than brief mentions in local papers and the radio trade press, nothing that would assert notability. It appears to be a WP:MILL radio morning show like many others around the world that don't have their own articles. Flip Format (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think we will always clash over Afd as I continue to hold the view that you seem to want articles deleted far too readily, although I note that you seem to have somewhat reigned in this instinct, which is good. As you know, I am against AfD as a matter of course, not least as people have made an effort to produce, and update these articles, and to want them deleted is a bit like throwing all their efforts back at them by using a very narrow, even draconian, interpretation of rules to justify having their efforts deleted. My view is to be positive about articles and it is very rare that I would ever advocate for anyone's efforts to be deleted, and this article does have sufficient independent references to further justify its inclusion. Rillington (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As with most AFDs these days, we need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hits Radio South Yorkshire where the show is mentioned. Sources don't provide the significant coverage required to pass the GNG. Regarding awards, there needs to be reporting independent of the award giver and radio station. As the programme is ongoing there's still a chance of it becoming notable, so a redirect to the radio station is preferable to outright deletion. Rupples (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC) To elaborate, the listing of award recipients is OK but doesn't tell us why the programme received the award. If reviews of and discussions about the show/awards are sourced, it would help demonstrate notability. Rupples (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC). The limited content looks reliably sourced so can be merged rather than just redirected. Changing my view to merge and redirect on reflection. Rupples (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Hits Radio South Yorkshire, not independantly notable. Desertarun (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McKenzie 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. JTtheOG (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the folllowing article as he is a member of the same team (St Helens R.F.C.) who also fails to meet WP:SPORTBASIC:

Ben Lane (rugby league) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:54, 26 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) 18:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional rugby league footballer who has played football at the elite level. 5 sources related to his football career.Fleets (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear as if he is currently playing, one pro aperance isn't sufficient. Mn1548 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only routine coverage aka signings and game reports, WP:SPORTBASIC. Other keep votes here should be discounted for making no mention of source depth. BrigadierG (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Five sources, even if none of them are specific to the subject, and the fact that most other team members have their own articles as well. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires in-depth coverage. Mere mentions in sources do not suffice. JTtheOG (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware, but if you want to be strict with that an AFD should be made for George Delaney, Ben Lane (rugby league), and other members of the St. Helens team as many only have passing or list mentions.

Buckley and others have their only specific mention on the rugby league project website, which isn't very in-depth as you said. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes they should. If you fling 100 non-notable stubs onto Wikipedia, you can't then also defend them from deletion by pointing out that the other 99 still exist. BrigadierG (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bundled the two others I mentioned who fall under the same deletion criteria with this AFD. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you do a WP:BEFORE search? Articles should probably be nominated individually anyways, which I was reminded of two days ago. JTtheOG (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though looking at that previous AFD I'll retract the nomination for Delaney for now as he seems to have slightly more content than the other two, though still nothing in-depth. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to use the additional nominations template or else it messes up the closure process. BrigadierG (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's there right below the initial nomination. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I was also unable to find any coverage of Ben Lane. JTtheOG (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hereford

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about an actor, and added a reference to his employer's website; but cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources, and do not think he meets WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 13:36, 11 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!} 07:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an article for deletion - definitely meets the criteria for actor. Multiple credits in major film and tv shows. 2600:1700:4640:E70:ECCA:5D5:421E:ECB4 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "employer". Henry is an established actor having been on several films and TV shows as referenced in IMDB and trade magazines. There is no reason this page would be deleted. Thefilmsorcerer (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barby Storage Reservoir

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

No refs on the page for many years, not seeing much which could be considered against the notability criteria for inclusion. It certainly exists, the trouble is finding substantial reliable sources about it. As an ATD we could merge to the reservoir section on Severn Trent JMWt (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and England. JMWt (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now sourced. However, if there is merge, it should be to Draycote Water. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comments on the improvements to the article since its nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stowmarket Town Council

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

No secondary sources. Lowest-tier local government authority in England, parish councils are rarely notable enough for an article. AusLondonder (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some secondary sources though I'm not sure if they are enough to qualify. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's nothing particuarly worth saying about this council. There doesn't seem to be much information about the award they recieved and it seems similar to those run-of-the-mill industry awards that aren't generally considered notable or pointing towards notability. ---- D'n'B-t -- 08:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If not notable if could be merged with Stowmarket. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 14 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) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stowmarket#Governance as an AtD and where the Council is already mentioned. Unlikely notability will be established. A merge would unbalance the Stowmarket article; lists of non-notable past mayor's names and a list of current councillors aren't normally included within articles on the settlement. Rupples (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jensen Monk

(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. Draftification would be an option, but this is a re-creation of an existing draft. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 6 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) 01:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional rugby league footballer who made his professional debut in 2023, played the other day against fellow top level side Warrington in the Challenge Cup. Multiple sources within the article.Fleets (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources 1 and 2 are stats databases, while the next four are trivial mentions of the subject. BLPs require strong sourcing, which is why I draftified it the first time. JTtheOG (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Currently playing in the top tier with five appearances and will likely gain more. Currently borderline on notability for me but will likely be recreated if deleated. Mn1548 (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He might be notable in the future but that would be speculating. Re-create if and when he plays a few more games and more sources are likely to exist. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are exclusively namedrops, zero coverage here. Arguments to keep based only on his appearing in a particular league are strictly invalid per SPORTSBASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of London Broncos players. Fails GNG as there is no SIGCOV. References are routine coverage and stats databases. Frank Anchor 01:22, 10 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) 02:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - two further news sources added referencing academy days, move into first team, and first appearance of the 2024 season.Fleets (talk) 11:08, 13 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) 05:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Young player, will likely have more written in the near future, 8 refs already. Mn1548 (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from repeating your !vote on a new bulleted line. Thank you. JTtheOG (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J Mo 101: @JoelleJay: Would y'all consider a redirect to List of London Broncos players to be a better alternative? JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George John Seaton

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

No evidence of notability. All the significant sources dealing with the topic are written by the subject. All others simply reference background story and not the subject. Fails WP:GNG . An earlier version was draftified because it lacked any credible claim to notability, so the same authored simply created this new version in mainspace without improving notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Africa, France, England, and South America. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - as well as the lack of notability, the whole thing reads like a school essay. Or maybe from a chat-bot. This is highlighted by the following comment in the lede: "This article explores George John Seaton's life as a prisoner, slave, and man. It will include researched documentation as well as information from his personal book, Isle of the Damned, to piece together the story of this man's intriguing life."--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like a school essay because the person who wrote the article, Jeorgiaobrien, is a university student who made it for an assignment. Just putting that out there in case anyone else who comes across this doesn't know. Sadustu Tau (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose moving the article into the draftspace. As the user above noted, this is part of a student assignment, in which first-year college students are grappling with understanding the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. The article was prematurely moved to the mainspace and correctly flagged—but it can be turned into a feasible Wikipedia article because there is a relevant source base.

Seaton’s notability primarily arises from the extensive reception of his autobiography, which occurred in two waves: 1) initial reception upon publication in the early 1950s, around the time Devil's Island ceased operations as a penal colony, by a largely Anglophone public and 2) the use of his autobiographical account in the contemporary historiography on French Guiana and related topics that reach from the treatment of prisoners across the French Empire to examples of queer sexuality during incarceration. In short, given that there is only a limited number of prisoners’ own accounts from their time in French Guiana (some of which have further been debunked as hoaxes), Seaton’s autobiography has become a standard historical source among scholars—and he, by extension, a model prisoner of sorts.

I have advised the student to make the necessary edits to turn this article into a proper encyclopedic essay, and to restructure it around the significance of his autobiography, which can be properly verified with secondary sources. We would appreciate it if she received the opportunity to make these edits in the draftspace. Outcasts&Outlaws (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as nominator, I have no problem with this being moved back to Draft. I would have done so myself had there not already been a Draft in existnce preventing the new version being draftified. It will therefore need an Admin to do the draftification. However, I or any other editor, will still have be convinced by the sourcing that this person is indeed notable and not simply a self publicist, before accepting it in Mainspace. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as the only !voter, I am also happy with draftification.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am the author of this article. I am continuously working on the article, so it meets the notability requirements. There are no longer any direct quotes from Seaton's autobiography and any wording that may sound like an essay has been removed. Here is a list of secondary sources that speak directly of Seaton and are sourced throughout the article: Negros with Slaves by Jet Magazine, Words of the Week by Jet Magazine, Space in the Tropics by Peter Redfield (University of California Press), and Empire of the Underworld (Harvard University Press). Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have been working on improving the article, there are now over 10 new sources that are all secondary sources and relate to George John Seaton. I have implemented many changes including formatting, word choice, and the removal of any primary source quotes. Please review this article once again. If you have more improvements you would like me to make, please visit my talk page. I will be happy to continue to make changes. After reviewing the article, if it meets notability requirements then I would love for this article to no longer be flagged for deletion. I am doing my best to follow Wikipedia's guidelines while also sharing a story of a man who should be remembered. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change !vote to Keep - the changes described above tip the scales (just) in my opinion. I would still like to see the article's tone cleaned up to fix unsupported phrases like "notoriously one of the worst penal colonies of its time", "if imprisonment didn't kill a prisoner, then disease would", etc. and to spend less space discussing Papillon in two different sections. But I think this can be done in place rather that draftifying. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From a brief look at this article and its references, perhaps it could be retitled Isle of the Damned and be restructured to be about the book/s Isles and Scars - their reviews and reception, use by University of Michigan, comparisons, censorship, etc? It would of course include a potted bio of Seaton. Is there enough for WP:NBOOK? JennyOz (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I will speak with my professor about the suggestion and consider your idea. Best wishes, Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 15:50, 12 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!} 22:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has basically been rewritten over the past two weeks and we have an unbolded "Keep" from the article creator. I'd like to hear from others, especially the nominator, whether these changes made to the article affect your point of view of what should happen with it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the nominator, I still remain uncertain about notability. As indicated above, I would be content with draftification to allow for improvement. I don't have access to any of the sources added during the recent major revision, but from their context it appears that the content of the book has been used in historical analysis both about the prison and its treatment of prisoners and other topics. Had this article been about the book, this may well have been sufficiet to demonstrate notability, but since , in this case, notability dependends on demonstrating multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject, I cannot be sure that that has been achieved, especially as most of the claims to notability are bundled into a single short paragraph at the end. Those with access to the quoted sources may possibly disagree, in which case I would be content to defer to their better understanding. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your uncertainty about the article's notability but the changes you first requested when you flagged my article for deletion have since been implemented. As for the accessibility of sources, nearly all of these sources come from publications made by recognized universities or from google books, etc. You should not have trouble accessing these sources if you wish to learn more. The only sources you may have trouble retrieving are the sources pulled from my university's archives. However, being that we are a research university, it is possible to access these upon reaching out to the university.

We did in fact leave out any claim that Seaton's book is credible. This is because the book is not being used as a source in the article but is instead just being referenced. My professor and I felt that it was more scholarly to explain how the book has been used in case studies rather than trying to persuade readers that the book is credible.

From your comment, it seems that your biggest issue with the article is the uncertainty that the sources are referencing Seaton himself. Most of these sources do speak directly of Seaton and were published after devil's island was closed in 1953. Seaton gained popularity for surviving the island which led to news coverage of him. These articles are all sourced in the article and as mentioned above they are public access if you wish to find them.

As the nominator, please give specific examples of what you would like changed in order to ensure notability and I will do so. I want to once again emphasize that nearly all of these sources can be accessed by the public and are available online. This can reassure you that subject matter is being reported on directly and not the context surrounding him. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a leaning-towards-a-Delete-!vote contributor: What's with the numerous assignments in academic institutions for students to "create a Wikipedia article"? Since when Wikipedia's criteria for article creation are the same as the criteria for academic papers? Such a practice endangers the objectivity of contributors evaluating the text as worthy of being in the encyclopaedia. I, for one, would perhaps hesitate to !vote for Deletion if that means the student's grading suffers! And we are essentially asked to do a supervising professor's job, when we assess a student's work.

P.S. As it happens, I find the subject lacking in independent notability on the basis of reliable sources. But the issue of academic papers flooding Wikipedia is more important. We should bear in mind this, for instance. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the creator of this article. As mentioned, I am a university student, and by no means an expert in writing encyclopedias. However, our class carefully trained with a Wikipedia representative from the Wikipedia Education Foundation (a group focused on building articles made by students). As well as help from our professor, who has a PhD in the topic, helped curate and edit our articles to meet Wikipedia standards. Since there has been issues with my particular article being granted publishing rights, she has stepped in to help me tremendously hoping to make this article go live.

Overall, our class is simply trying to share the stories of people who have been othered in history. A few of my sources are pulled from the University Library and Library Archives at Washington University in St. Louis. However, the rest of the sources are all available online and should be accessible to the public. I am unsure why accessing the sources has been an issue. Many of these sources have public access from esteemed Universities and others are published on google books, etc.

The original nomination for deletion was made due to the use of a primary source. This information has since been removed. My professor and I have added multiple new sources that are accessible through online databases and take the place of the primary source. As mentioned by the nominator (User:Velella), there is less emphasis on the book's notability. This was done on purpose, as we felt it was more scholarly to give facts about how the autobiography by Seaton has been used as case studies for prisons and prisoner homosexuality versus trying to make a biased claim that the book is credible. We also thought that including the credibility of the book was irrelevant to the article because there is no source usage of the book in the article any longer.

I would love more feedback for what changes you think this article may need. My class ends very quickly so I am hoping to have an article that is able to go live. Thanks. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was notable even before the new sources were added. Desertarun (talk) 17:56, 26 April 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 no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Book Collective

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

The page may not meet Wikipedia's notability; perhaps - redirect to Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs BoraVoro (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Museums and libraries, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @BoraVoro for your suggestion to delete this page. Maybe to share some details around why I thought it might be good to have a separate page on the Open Book Collective - this Open Access platform and community has been developed out of the Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs project, but as the COPIM project has ended and the Open Book Collective itself has matured and now is its own legal entity, I thought it might make more sense to have a separate entry for that initiative. I agree that the current state of the page is still rudimentary, but my hope is that this will be soo growing to include more detailed information around key collaborations, etc. in the space of non-profit OA book publishing, so would be grateful if this could be given space here on Wikipedia going forward. Thanks so much for your consideration, and all best, Flavoursofopen (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you @Flavoursofopen for your passion and work. I'm not entirely in favor of deletion at this point. I am open to changing or withdrawing my vote. BoraVoro (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added a stub tag to the page. Looking over the coverage of the Open Book Collective on the web, it appears notable enough but the article is just starting and does need work. In this case we should follow Wikipedia's policy of improving an article rather than deleting it.WP:EDITING Myotus (talk) 19:04, 10 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) 14:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, fails WP:NGO. I cannot find any sourcing that is fully independent of the organizaiton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The OBC is a full UK-registered Charity, see https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/5219053 Flavoursofopen (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flavoursofopen That does not prove notability Mach61 04:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, apologies, I misunderstood - there are indeed more independent sources, e.g.
https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2023/11/open-book-collective-collective-path-toward-an-open-and-sustainable-monograph-future/

https://subscriptionsmanager.jisc.ac.uk/catalogue/2840

Flavoursofopen (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flavoursofopen The University of California webpage was written by a Chair for the OBC, so it isn't independent. Webpage #2 is literally selling a subscription to the OBC. Mach61 16:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mach61, thanks for this - and apologies again, but your points for me quickly raise another, more substantial issue - namely what is actually meant by "independence" here ... i.e. how far removed from an institution do you have to be to count as "independent"?

Would e.g. this source [1](https://open-access.network/services/news/artikel/finanzielle-unterstuetzung-fuer-open-access-buecher) count as "independent"? Would official statements of the OBC's international funders or evolving network of universities, infrastructures, etc - all of thems independent, well-recognised entities - suffice, would research articles such as [2](https://journal.dbs.ie/index.php/dbs/article/view/119/65), mentioning the OBC? Like, what counts as enough?

As an aside, for me it's quite frustrating that a not-for-profit charity such as the Open Book Collective that is clearly working to do the same for OA books as Wikipedia does for encyclopedic knowledge - to remove barriers to access to knowledge overall - and with similar open mission & values is being sidelined by such artifically-erected barriers ... and I see the argument for due process etc. but again, when is enough? Flavoursofopen (talk) 14:35, 25 April 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

Jobbykrust

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

Article about a band, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The main claim of notability on offer here is that they existed, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them -- but the article is referenced entirely to primary source directory entries that aren't support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of any reliable or GNG-building coverage shown at all. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Northern Ireland. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - confirmed nothing in Wikipedia Library or Rock's Backpages. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Page has been moved to Jobbykrust (1990-1997) by the creator. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of NMUSIC or GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for reasons given. David notMD (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. History appears to be mostly WP:OR. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No charts, fails WP:GNG, WP:BAND, not much coverage in RS found. All i found was 3 books. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The three sources are not reliable per WP:RSPS. Last.fm is deprecated same as Rate Your Music. Discogs is not reliable but per this discussion i consider using it per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_55#Discogs_and_45cat.com_should_be_acceptable_sources_when_Allmusic_has_gaps TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I actually nominated it myself, not noticing that this discussion was underway due to the removal of the deletion discussion template; the sources aren't there for GNG, the band clearly does not meet NMUSIC, so notability isn't there. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish WP:GNG here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability per above comments. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 14:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Others

Scotland

Boc Maxima

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

Fails GNG. Did a WP:BEFORE search and everything I found mentions the album in passing. 🌙Eclipse ^(talk) ^(contribs) 12:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Scotland. Skynxnex (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boards of Canada: Found nothing on the album. Not too surprising given "limited to 50 copies world-wide, which were handed out to friends and family" and it being two years before their first major release. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or redirect to Boards of Canada discography#Limited-only releases. There's certainly no compelling reason to keep the article. Richard3120 (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect probably makes sense. Just not enough coverage of this album that I can see. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:22, 25 April 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]

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'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]

Imaan Zainab Mazari

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

She fails WP:GNG as there is no sources covering her in depth. The article is created based on recentism because she just received nominal coverage due to her few days arrest and she being the daughter of a notable politician Shireen Mazari. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems a proper WP:BEFORE search was not conducted before nominating. As the creator of this BLP, It's natural that I prefer not to see it deleted. The BLP is well-sourced, contains no OR, and maintains a NPOV. I'll leave it to the community to decide. I can expand this page further as there's still more coverage on her, but I believe the community may agree that this BLP, in its current state, adequately demonstrates the subject meets WP:GNG. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article appears to rely heavily on sources that cover her in the context of recent events, particularly her arrests, rather than on her long-term significance as a human rights lawyer. The current state of the article may indeed be more appropriate for Wikinews, given its focus on recent events. Although she marginally satisfies the WP:GNG, the content is largely influenced by her brief detentions and her mother's political stature. Whereas, the criteria demand sustained and significant coverage, reflecting a subject’s lasting relevance. samee converse 02:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it surprising that you guys perceiving this as a RECENTISM issue. She has consistently received press coverage- both nationally and internationally- dating back as far as 2014 (see this) which indicates that she passes WP:10YT. It's not a matter of receiving temporary blip of news coverage for a single incident or event, rather- it's a compilation of several incidents. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's merely a brief mention, and even that's only in relation to her being Shireen Mazari's daughter. She states her mother had no objection to attend the protests. There is no mention of her own credentials in the source if she had any. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that she has been consistently covered in the news since 2014. In 2015 she received more press attention after being targeted by trolls on social media, a phenomenon not typically experienced by children of official or public figures in Pakistan. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the coverage from 2014/2015 you're referring to is primarily because she's Shireen Mazari's daughter. Reports focus on the novelty of her actions, such as voting for her mother's rival party or protesting against PTI affiliates who stormed PTV, rather than her qualifications. Perhaps she stood out as the only protestor who was child of a prominent figure on that particular day. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not implying that this 2014/2015 press coverage is alone establishes her meeting the criteria of WP:GNG. The point is, she has been consistently receiving media attention since 2014. Anyways, to establish WP:GNG, we should focus on the sources present in the BLP itself, which I believe are sufficient. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Saqib that the sources are sufficient, and even the delete vote is acknowledging that the article meets the GNG. With general notability, sufficient sourcing, and a well-written article, what exactly is the problem here? rspεεr (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

off topic discussion

@Rspeer: personal disagreements. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's ridiculous. I recently endorsed your nomination just a few days ago. If I had personal disagreements, I wouldn't have supported it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't even mention your name. Isn't this ridiculous that you just recently created this BLP on a non-notable police officer, an unknown figure who just received some recent press attention. This a clear case of WP:RECENTISM. You cited a video source multiple time as a reference to back up claims in the Early Life and Education as well Career sections. Yet here, you even didn't care to do a proper WP:BEFORE search. This clearly suggest that you've some sort of issue with me which I'm trying my best to ignore. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ANYBIO, award recipients are considered notable, video source is Geo News, a reliable source. You should assume good faith, you ignored the part in my previous comment where I showed you the evidence of my recent support for you. I did not even know that you were the creator until after AFD submission when I saw bot added message to your talk page in my watchlist. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She did receive an award for the recent incident that garnered press attention, but this is falls under WP:RECENTISM. However, the WP:ANYBIO also states that receiving an award does not automatically confer notability. Regarding the citation of a Geo News video as a reference, it's important to note that this video is an interview, and thus a a primary source. Citing video interviews as reference could set a problematic precedent for BLP articles. Despite my efforts to AGF, it seems reciprocity is lacking. And as for your support vote, it was not solicited nor necessary. I find it difficult to believe your assertion that you were unaware this BLP was created by me. Following our disagreement on this BLP, you promptly nominated this for deletion. Therefore, Assume the assumption of good faith. Anyways, let's avoid further escalation on this matter, at least on this page. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG: BCC, TFT, etc. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:48, 19 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!} 23:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Switch Scotland

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

This article about a digital radio multiplex has been tagged for notability since 2012 and I'm unable to find much in the way of SIGCOV to assert notability - just articles about stations opening and closing on the multiplex signal, which are primarily about the stations and not the multiplex. There is !precedent for redirecting these articles to the article for their parent company [35]. Most of this article consists of unsourced WP:OR about stations being added, deleted and moved around on various digital radio multiplexes. Flip Format (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Flip Format (talk) 13:23, 14 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!} 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this music?

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable magazine/website. Unsourced since its inception and there is nothing to find online. Anarchyte (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Websites, and Scotland. Anarchyte (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Cfls (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cfls why do you wish to have the article deleted? Voting without a rationale is unhelpful. Mach61 21:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion and a lack of deletion rationale from some participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no reliable sources in the article. I could find nothing that resembled independent reliable sources in a web search, though they could be hidden by the name which is also a fairly common phrase. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear to have any reliable, secondary coverage or meet WP:NMAG. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:18, 20 April 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

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]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom

United Kingdom

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

England

Others

Northern Ireland

Others

Scotland

Others

Wales

Others