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:
- 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.
watch |
- See also:
Scan for United Kingdom related AfDs
|
United Kingdom
Electoral firsts in Guernsey
- Electoral firsts in Guernsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:GNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Simpasture railway station
- Simpasture railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG. Of the seven sources, two are trivial mentions, four don't mention the station at all, and one (Priestley) has brief mentions of a station of similar name but many decades earlier. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Demons Bridge railway station
- Demons Bridge railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG. Of the three sources, two are trivial mentions and one does not mention the station at all. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Totectors
- Totectors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No apparent signs of notability for this brand of safety footwear. The only Google results are for outlets that sell the brand, and the only news results discuss the relaunch of the brand by International Brands Group after the original manufacturer went out of business. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Notable brand, synonymous with steel capped safety boots in UK industry for decades. There's plenty of coverage in copyright sources. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC).
- User:WikiDan61 Please improve the article by adding information about the change of ownership. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC).
- @Rich Farmbrough: "plenty of coverage in copyright sources"? I'm not sure what that means. If it means that Totectors have applied for and received copyright protection for their brand, I don't see how that adds to notability. I could expand the article with notes about their acquisition, but I am loath to do so until we've evaluated whether the article merits inclusion / improvement. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- It means that there is coverage which cannot be accessed by simply "Googling". For older entities there will be easily accessible material via searchable on-line archives. For more recent entities there is likely to be material that was published after the widespread adoption of the Web, which will therefore be available. The period between 1930 and about 2000 is, in some senses, the hardest era to research. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC).
- It means that there is coverage which cannot be accessed by simply "Googling". For older entities there will be easily accessible material via searchable on-line archives. For more recent entities there is likely to be material that was published after the widespread adoption of the Web, which will therefore be available. The period between 1930 and about 2000 is, in some senses, the hardest era to research. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC).
- User:WikiDan61 Please improve the article by adding information about the change of ownership. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC).
British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives
- British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wholly unsourced article since 2009 Danners430 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Danners430 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Danners430, were you aware that there isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources? Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I am aware. However, if you continue reading through that guideline, you’ll find more info - specifically regarding whether editors can find sources elsewhere. I’ve done a search through sources that I know of, and through search engines, and can’t find any sources whatsoever. As per that guideline, that seriously casts into question the notability of the article. Danners430 (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: This is contextless data with no indication of importance or discussion as a group in secondary sources; as such, it fails WP:NLIST. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I found a book source which I think is enough to establish the topic's notability. Smith, Paul; Smith, Shirley (2014). British Rail departmental locomotives 1948-1968 : includes depots and stabling points. Hersham: Ian Allan Publishing. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-7110-3800-4. OCLC 897871236. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. These statistics are not given any context or meaning. Eastmain above fails to distinguish between departmental locomotives as a whole (we already have British Rail departmental locomotives) and eastern region departmental locomotives. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
British Rail DHP1
- British Rail DHP1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wholly unsourced article since 2009 Danners430 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: without sources. Nothing came up on Google. RolandSimon (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Danners430 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: There just isn't anything written about this that I can find [1], a photo there, and [2], a magazine that won't open for me... I'd maybe merge this into the list of British locomotives, but it's unsourced regardless. I mean, the information came from somewhere, but we don't have a source identified... Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I can't find any evidence of SIGCOV, and no suitable redirect target seems to exist. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete unfortunately, unless offline sourcing exists (which wouldn't surprise me). I found a couple of sources that were neither in-depth nor reliable which suggest that British Rail Class 17 (on which it was based) would make an appropriate merge target if we can verify the information. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as this is basically unverifiable. Even if it were conclusively proven to exist it would only merit a brief mention within the Class 17 article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Reasons to Be Cheerful (book)
- Reasons to Be Cheerful (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mainly Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV , I had trouble finding sources for this article. GoodHue291 (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I can only find reviews of a book with the same title by Nina Stibbe, unrelated to this book. I don't see notability for this book. Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Visual arts, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Covered in the New York Times, The Independent (via ProQuest), Eye Magazine and Design Oberserver. Not sure about the reliability of the last one, but the author seems qualified enough. Sufficient coverage to meet WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Could be excellent sources, but it's still hasn't been added onto the article. GoodHue291 (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- @GoodHue291: I've added them to the article, but for future reference, whether they're in the article or not has no impact on notability. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Could be excellent sources, but it's still hasn't been added onto the article. GoodHue291 (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The New York Times source is very strong. The Eye Magazine is also good. Toughpigs (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, per above listing of sources (please do well-detailed and extensive "before" searches if AfD is to be a thing). Randy Kryn (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Helium 3 (record label)
- Helium 3 (record label) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged as relying too heavily on WP:PRIMARY sources all the way back in 2011, it is clear that thirteen years later very little has changed. Literally none of the sourcing is reliable -- the only two unique sources are the Muse fan wiki and WP:DISCOGS, which both fail WP:USERG. A Google search turned up only fan websites, articles about Muse, passing mentions, etc. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG handily. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Clear merge target to Muse (band), no need to bring to AfD. Chubbles (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Muse (band). The subject of this article is not notable for a page. It is merely the Warner Music imprint used by this band. There is no secondary sourcing on it and notability for an imprint is not inherited. Not notable for a page. Neither is there anything on this page that should be merged. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect somewhere, either Muse as mentioned or to Warner. Graywalls (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster
- Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Also for the same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Prix: The Killer Years, by the same filmmaker.
Contested PROD. Editor added sources, only to add three which is not enough to assert notability of this non-notable television film to 2024 standards per WP:NF. One of those is WP:PRIMARY and the other is a TV guide recommendation. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why should 3 sources not be enough to assert notability? How many do you wish? Or did I misunderstand and is it not the number but the nature of the sources you are not satisfied with? Anyway, you have now 6 (or 4 if you consider that 2 do not count (but a TV guide recommendation should imv count)) and they seem significant enough. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Cunard added sources and deproDed the page (same nom). The coverage including critical commentary may be judged significant enough to show this is notable. A redirect to the event itself should be considered anyway (in a In film section). Also see https://www.cararticles.co.uk/uk-deadliest-crash-the-1955-le-mans-disaster.html (a review on what is technically a blog; the reviewer has 3340 articles listed there...) and https://www.autoweek.com/racing/more-racing/a1813276/deadliest-crash-dives-1955-le-mans-catastrophe/ or https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/the-rivalry-that-caused-the-deadliest-crash-in-motorsport-1973804.html among other things. (that might seem more than enough for GNG or for NFILM so MAYBE that implies that the other Afd, if that is indeed the same case, as the nominator states, should have had another outcome with a little bit of work...) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody could dispute that Cunard did a good job with the sourcing but even WP:BEFORE turned out nothing which led to this AfD. Reviewing the new sources above, Autoweek speaks little of the documentary, I cannot see if that is worthy of a review. Independent did better, a bit. And again, it talks about the disaster too. I cannot see how blogs count as reliable sources also. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- CarArticles : SPS expert sources may count or at least may be used.
Autoweek speaks little of the documentary,
? Autoweek's article's title is 'The Deadliest Crash' Dives Into The 1955 Le Mans Catastrophe which clearly means its main focus is on the film....It does speak sufficiently of it to be considered significant: Originally aired in 2010, the documentary above dives into the background of the race with some spectators and participants, but spends it the second half talking about the accident in graphic detail. For motorsports fans who haven't already seen it, this hourlong documentary is a must-watch -- note that viewers might find some of the footage disturbing.it talks about the disaster too.
Obviously, yes, it's because the film is a documentary based on newly-found footage. They describe the new "evidences" as seen in the film.....- The Independent article subhead is Newly found footage puts blame on British driver for a 1955 disaster that killed up to 120 at Le Mans....
- Anyway, I've added quotes from 2 of these sources to the page too + a mention in the The Routledge Companion to Automobile Heritage, Culture, and Preservation.
- Feel free to add more: some extra coverage is listed here but it's only identified and it implies some search, for which I won't have time; and also as I think I will leave it at that, as I consider I have done, here and on the page, what I could to show the film meets the requirements for notability and even mentioned an ATD. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody could dispute that Cunard did a good job with the sourcing but even WP:BEFORE turned out nothing which led to this AfD. Reviewing the new sources above, Autoweek speaks little of the documentary, I cannot see if that is worthy of a review. Independent did better, a bit. And again, it talks about the disaster too. I cannot see how blogs count as reliable sources also. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, France, and United Kingdom. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as the article is now referenced to reliable sources coverage such as the Independent, Daily Telegraph, Autoweek and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
- Radford, Ceri (2010-05-17). "Worried About the Boy, BBC Two, Review". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
The review notes: "At the opposite end of the subtlety spectrum was The Deadliest Crash: the Le Mans 1955 Disaster (Sunday, BBC Four), a documentary exploring the infamous motoring smash-up which killed at least 80 spectators (the exact figure is uncertain) when a car flew off the track into a packed grandstand. It didn’t take long to get to the point. Death! Disaster! Flying debris! Burning bodies! As soon as the opening credits had faded we were assaulted with archive images and eyewitness accounts of the whole gruesome panoply. It was like a cross between a video nasty and a mind-boggling trip back in time to a past that wasn’t just another country, but a different planet. ... This programme was brash but fascinating. Health and safety and PR may be seen as modern evils, but looking at footage of the race’s winner spraying champagne just metres away from the charred corpses of his fans, you can see why they became necessary."
- Clay, Joe (2010-05-15). "Digital choices". The Times. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
The review notes: "Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster BBC Four, 9pm At 6.26pm on June 11, 1955, on the home straight early in the Le Mans 24-Hour race, the future British World Champion Mike Hawthorn made a rash mistake that caused Pierre Levegh's Mercedes 300 SLR to career into the crowd, killing 83 people and injuring 120 more. It remains the worst disaster in motor racing history and this excellent film (above) uses original footage and stills, along with eyewitness accounts to examine the chain of events to try to discover exactly what happened."
- Wren, Wesley (2017-01-24). "'The Deadliest Crash' Dives Into The 1955 Le Mans Catastrophe". Autoweek. Archived from the original on 2024-06-05. Retrieved 2024-06-05.
The review notes: "Originally aired in 2010, the documentary above dives into the background of the race with some spectators and participants, but spends it the second half talking about the accident in graphic detail. For motorsports fans who haven't already seen it, this hourlong documentary is a must-watch -- note that viewers might find some of the footage disturbing."
- The other sources found in Mushy Yank (talk · contribs)'s excellent research including the extra coverage listed here.
- Radford, Ceri (2010-05-17). "Worried About the Boy, BBC Two, Review". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
Chandni Mistry
- Chandni Mistry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a local councillor; there is additional local coverage from the same newspapers already referenced, but no additional national coverage. She was a councillor for less than a year, was investigated for electoral fraud but no action was taken, and she was nominated for, but did not win, an award. She is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, but I don't believe that contributes to notability (see brief discussion from 2011 here). I do not think she meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPOL. Tacyarg (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
This wikipedia page has already been granted a B class Wikipedia status as defined The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. This therefore is relevant page and is particularly important given that this page represents the youngest BAME councillor in the history of the city. This seems like a malicious second attempt to request deletion of the wikipedia as the country falls into a general election. All aspects of the wikipedia page have been properly referenced as approved by various sources. With reference to Royal Society of Arts, the individual is listed on their pages.Handedits (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC) ( Confirmed sockpuppet of Gowikipro, see investigation)- Hi, regarding your use of the word "malicious" to describe my deletion proposal. I reject this. I have no conflict of interest regarding this councillor or the article about her. I'm not sure what you mean by second attempt, but if you mean the AFC decline in November, that was another person. I have not opened a previous deletion discussion about this article. Tacyarg (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - local councillors do not meet WP:NPOL so notability would need to be established thorough WP:GNG. There is coverage in local papers but no significant coverage beyond that. BBC coverage is about the controversy over residency which at best makes this WP:1E. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Not much to establish notability. An article that doesn't meet WP:NPOL. WP:ROUTINE and WP:MILL at a low level though may be in the future. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Does not fulfill NPOL and not enough coverage to meet GNG. Charcoal feather (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
A Short History of the Sudan
- A Short History of the Sudan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unsourced; I can't find a single source that doesn't refer to the much shorter work by Margaret Shinnie. Rusalkii (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, Sudan, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Mandour El Mahdi as an AtD. Published by a major university publisher; it may have received reviews in the 1960s (or for later reprints) that aren't available online. Redirect until/unless someone manages to locate such coverage. Jfire (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Mandour El Mahdi with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources of the book. I support a redirect to the author's article, where the book is already mentioned.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Here is a passing mention I found about the subject:
- Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn; Lobban Jr., Richard A.; Voll, John Obert (1992). Historical Dictionary of the Sudan (2 ed.). Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press. p. 251. ISBN 0-8108-2547-3. Retrieved 2024-06-05 – via Internet Archive.
The source provides a passing mention about the subject. The book notes: "General reference works of special value are Richard Hill, A Biographical Dictionary of the Sudan, which covers ancient times to the 20th Century; Mandour el-Mahdi, Short History of the Sudan, presents a summary of Sudanese history from antiquity to present times; and two general, multidisciplinary descriptions are H. D. Nelson, Area Handbook for the Democratic Republic of the Sudan, published by the U. S. Government Printing Office, and Sudan Today, prepared by the Sudanese Ministry of Information and Culture."
- Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn; Lobban Jr., Richard A.; Voll, John Obert (1992). Historical Dictionary of the Sudan (2 ed.). Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press. p. 251. ISBN 0-8108-2547-3. Retrieved 2024-06-05 – via Internet Archive.
TextMagic
- TextMagic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no notability. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Estonia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: An article about a firm with a corporate SMS product, which has changed hands a couple of times, most recently with a share offering on Nasdaq Tallinn. In its current state, the article references concern its share offering, which falls under trivial coverage. An earlier article version had this Small Business Trends piece (2015) as a reference, but that is effectively a company Q&A. There is also a 2023 item on a company acquisition but that is announcement-based coverage. A company going about its business, but I am not seeing coverage to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Manx Aviation and Military Museum
- Manx Aviation and Military Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Merge Fails to meet WP:GNG. Should be included in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castletown,_Isle_of_Man#Places_of_interest Wikilover3509 (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Castletown,_Isle_of_Man#Places_of_interest as a viable AtD. Star Mississippi 15:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment, requests for article mergers should not be started at AfDs. A proposed merger nomination should've been the correct way to nominate this article since you are asking for a merge. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep there are some press references [3] [4] [5] and books [6] etc. There's too much content here, with the prospect of adding more, to merit the proposed merge elsewhere where this museum would then overly dominate the other article, in my opinion. Plus it's inclusion in Template:British Aviation Museums seems reasonable and would be less well achieved following a merge. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Conrad Hughes
- Conrad Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is a sockpuppet production. After the sock was blocked, I removed all primary sources. I was left with only two, one of which has the subject talking about another topic (his school) in an interview. This subject appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR. JFHJr (㊟) 00:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Please see history for an extensive record of puffery. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ah--this is where this came from: a socking case of COI-puffery. JFHJr, in such cases, don't even bother cleaning up the article; not doing so makes the fluff stand out nicely. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- I try to present each specimen in its most favorable light. And without extraneous reading. Anyone wondering about the application of my edits can see the history. Thank you for your comment. I always appreciate your input. JFHJr (㊟) 00:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- For everyone's consideration and time-sinking availability, this version is what we are talking about. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm opposed to you wanting to delete this article. Looks like an attempt at illegitimate blanking.Wikiviewer2 (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)- I am also opposed, who is crossing out wikipedia user's statements? Jane asia (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) — Jane asia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Same question! Why are Wikipedia user statements being crossed out? I'm genuinely curious as to why someone would be so determined to delete an article about a legitimate, leading practitioner in the field of international education. Annabella25 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Annabella25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Ah--this is where this came from: a socking case of COI-puffery. JFHJr, in such cases, don't even bother cleaning up the article; not doing so makes the fluff stand out nicely. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, South Africa, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Independent coverage seems to be limited. Deb (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Not really, in the article you took down there were at least 10 independent references and there are many more out there, just look through the web!213.55.220.222 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)- Again, I'm left wondering: who is striking through Wikipedia user's statements, and for what reason?? Annabella25 (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Annabella25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I was surprised to see the previous article removed. Dr Hughes is well known in international education. Have you googled him? Why should the article be reduced or deleted, according to who?213.55.220.222 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)- The article is not removed, and "well known" should be supported by reliable secondary sources. "Have you googled him" is not a reasonable or helpful question to ask. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's easy to find articles on him:
- https://www.k12digest.com/designing-and-implementing-educational-systems-for-the-future/
- https://www.internationalschoolparent.com/articles/interview-with-dr-conrad-hughes-ecole-internationale-de-geneve-ecolint/
- https://www.letemps.ch/economie/chatgpt-fait-son-chemin-dans-les-ecoles-privees
- Have you seen all the things he's published with UNESCO?
- It seems a bit weird to want to remove him, is there some personal vendetta going on here?
- - Lefka1 (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC) — Lefka1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- That's two interviews (WP:BLPSPS) and coverage that includes Hughes talking about a different topic (the in-depth coverage is not about Hughes but AI in private schools). How does that approach WP:ANYBIO? JFHJr (㊟) 20:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
So why are you deleting those two interviews? In the article you removed there were lots of sourcesWikiviewer2 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC) — Wikiviewer2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.- The interviews have not been deleted. They're still at their URLs for anyone who googles this subject to find. JFHJr (㊟) 22:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- He has clearly made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in education, just by his publications for the World Economic Forum, Springer, The Conversation, his doctoral research, and dozens of articles. He's a well respected scholar. This alone meets WP:ANYBIO Lefka1 (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC) — Lefka1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I agree! Now, I'm genuinely curious about the motivation behind someone's relentless effort to delete an article about a reputable, leading practitioner in the field of international education. Annabella25 (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- He has clearly made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in education, just by his publications for the World Economic Forum, Springer, The Conversation, his doctoral research, and dozens of articles. He's a well respected scholar. This alone meets WP:ANYBIO Lefka1 (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC) — Lefka1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The interviews have not been deleted. They're still at their URLs for anyone who googles this subject to find. JFHJr (㊟) 22:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's two interviews (WP:BLPSPS) and coverage that includes Hughes talking about a different topic (the in-depth coverage is not about Hughes but AI in private schools). How does that approach WP:ANYBIO? JFHJr (㊟) 20:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
You or whoever removed the first article took out lots of independent references. There's an interview with the International Baccalaureate for example. That's not a primary source, why are you removing it? There was also an article in the TES about him and by Cambridge's SHAPE. I am opposed to your proposal to delete this.213.55.220.222 (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- The article is not removed, and "well known" should be supported by reliable secondary sources. "Have you googled him" is not a reasonable or helpful question to ask. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I'm about to block a socking account. The nay-sayers here likely have conflicts of interest, but worse than that they lack a proper understanding of what Wikipedia is and what the processes are. Interviews and whatnot do not count towards notability. If there is an "enduring historical record in education", there will be secondary sources that say that. That someone published articles also does not make them notable--unless others have written about those articles. If there's any more socking, this AfD will be semi-protected. Oh, Lefka1, if you make any more comments about "personal vendetta" or whatever, I will happily block you too. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I'm intrigued by the controversy surrounding this article. I have no axe to grind about Hughes, one way or another, and I don't necessarily espouse his views, but - whether one likes it or not - he is unquestionably prominent and influential in international education, and increasingly so. Are the editors who propose the deletion of the article familiar with this field?- International educators throughout the world would be puzzled to hear that quite a small article devoted to Hughes has been earmarked for deletion, on the grounds of insufficient notability. An article providing some basic, sober information, free of "puffery", about who Hughes is and does fulfills Wikipedia's responsibility to inform its vast reading public, in an objective and neutral manner, about noteworthy people and topics, with the support of solid citations. I can't say I care enough about the Hughes article to do extensive research on its behalf, but as far as secondary sources go, you might look at the reputed TES journal (29 May 2020, "Rethinking school: a special issue", by Alistair McConville), the McKay interview with Hughes on World Radio Switzerland (29 February 2024), or the June 2024 "Formation" supplement ("Ces écoles centenaires") of Bilan magazine, page 4). So my advice, as an experienced Wikipedia reader (though not editor) would be DO NOT DELETE. All those in the field of international education understand why there is an article about Hughes in Wikipedia, regardless of whether they share his well-known educational goals.
By the way, I notice that some previous contributions to this discussion have been crossed out. Why, by whom, and on what authority? Those deleted comments are somewhat assertive, but by no means rude or irresponsible. I hope that this is not how Wikipedia functions, with certain editors censoring the reasonable contributions of others.83.79.254.53 (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- You were blocked as User:Tamara Santerra pursuant to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A. Roderick-Grove and now you're participating in this discussion logged out (block evasion). Why do you think it's okay for you to continue trying to participate here? (pinging @Bbb23: if you have 30 seconds for followup, as blocking admin for Tamara) JFHJr (㊟) 16:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've heard this speaker in conferences, he's well know in international education circles. But when I go to wikipedia I see someone is trying to delete the page. I am opposed to this page being deleted. Jane asia (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) — Jane asia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- @Drmies, since your comment re page protection, we've gotten 2 new SPAs here, 1 more SPA at this page's talk; a blocked sock trying to vote here as an IP; a second IP that certainly belongs to one of the others; and more talk about a personal bias motivation (vendetta). If you have time today, could you please SPP this discussion? Any feedback is appreciated. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Seeing no evidence that article's subject is sufficiently notable re: WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR.The article itself is quite poor.Boredintheevening (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- KEEP. Hughes is a widely known figure in international education. To anybody who is knowledgeable about this field, that's obvious. I'm surprised that this can be such a controversial issue. Basic research about Hughes will confirm his notability. 77.59.138.101 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- The deletion proposal is not controversial. It does not require controversy to happen. Just a crappy article and crappy sources. The only controversy here is all the WP:SOCKs, who are apparently determined to edit logged-out after blocks (editing logged-out is much like editing naked, leaves very little in doubt). You're making it much easier to tie a single sock to multiple IPs, so thank you! JFHJr (㊟) 18:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- KEEP. Dr. Hughes is a prominent figure in international education, widely respected for his significant contributions. He has authored two important books and numerous articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and he leads one of the oldest and most esteemed international schools in the world. His direct involvement with UNESCO and other international organizations, as well as his frequent invitations as a keynote speaker to global events, further underscore his expertise and influence in the field. Moreover, he holds two PhDs! Any attempt to delete his Wikipedia article may be motivated by personal bias rather than factual grounds. It's deeply troubling and shameful to witness someone of such high regard being placed in such a situation. Annabella25 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Annabella25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete – WP:ANYBIO is clearly not met, and I can't see how he meets WP:NACADEMIC either. As pointed out (repeatedly) above, secondary sources are required, and they simply aren't there. --bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The best case for notability is via NAUTHOR, but this would require multiple reviews of multiple works in reliable sources. Reviews are not evident, and I did not find them on my search; noting that searching is complicated by the subject's common name. The history of sockpuppetry and promotionalism here is indeed concerning. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Falls short of WP:GNG (the one Tribune de Genève article) and of WP:AUTHOR (I could only find two reviews of one book [7] [8]). Weak because he's partway there on both criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Two interviews are not enough. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- P.S. I have been taught at schools with IB and other independent ("private" or "prep") school for 5 years. I have never heard of him. He is not known world-wide, or at least not in New York City. 15:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Christopher Norton. Not much material to merge. Malinaccier (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Microjazz
- Microjazz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced for 5 years and cannot locate any reliable sources to get it to meet WP:GNG. Random line of sheet music, not inherently notable. ZimZalaBim talk 15:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Education, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Well, this [9] helps, I'll see what else comes up... Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Christopher Norton: Most hits are in relation to Christopher Norton [10], [11] are brief reviews... Unless someone can find better sourcing to !keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with Christopher Norton: if independent sourcing for the term can be found, otherwise redirect. Owen× ☎ 19:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
Notional results of the 2019 United Kingdom general election by 2024 constituency
- Notional results of the 2019 United Kingdom general election by 2024 constituency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
These are not official election results; they are projections by a pair of private researchers. As a result, this article appears to be WP:SPECULATION by presenting a single set of calculations as an alternative history. The article is based almost entirely on the researchers' spreadsheet or on the Sky News article written by one of the researchers. Per WP:NOPAGE, this topic can be adequately covered by the existing material at 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies: "In January 2024, professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher published detailed estimates of what the result would have been had the new boundaries been in place at the previous general election. This analysis shows the Conservatives would have won seven additional seats in 2019, with Labour losing two, the Liberal Democrats three and Plaid Cymru two." Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Very strong keep
- No, these are notional results used by BBC for the upcoming election, and notional results are an essential part when new boundaries are introduced in the UK. Thomediter (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- They're addressed in detail in 2024 United Kingdom general election and also at 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. Why do they need a WP:STANDALONE page? And why are there no other pages of notional results for other elections prior to a constituency boundary shift? Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- They're not adressed in enough detail, if the voting figures are missing, they still matter. Just because there is no page previously doesn't make the page irrelevant. There are numerous examples of this such there being a page about Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979, despite there being no page about Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 1977. Thomediter (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- They're addressed in detail in 2024 United Kingdom general election and also at 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. Why do they need a WP:STANDALONE page? And why are there no other pages of notional results for other elections prior to a constituency boundary shift? Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete (which, just to be clear, is very strong too, but we don't need to specify that). This is a fork from 2024 United Kingdom general election. That page is the correct place for an encyclopaedic treatment of the matter. What is the case for pulling this out from that page? Only to give the polling excessive detail. Why is it useful? Because there is an election in a few weeks, and people in the UK are interested in the notional results following boundary changes. But... it won't have very much relevance at all once the election takes place. There is some possibility that some aspect of the prediction will be so interesting that people will write about it one day, but they haven't yet. No secondary sourcing supports the existence of this page and it is a very clear fail of the ten year test. It is also excessive detail for an encyclopaedic article. We should summarise that in prose and link to a source with the detail. This is, essentially, a kind of news reporting. It is not an encyclopaedic article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- The notional results will ALWAYS be relevant to compare how voters changed preference from 2019 to 2024. Again, I have to point out that a lot of news organizations uses these notional results for this purpose. Thomediter (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- The ten-year-test argument fails because it is already standard Wikipedia practice to use Thrasher+Rallings notionals from previous boundary reviews when calculating swings. Go to any constituency article and the swing in the 2010 results is the swing from the 2005 notionals- e.g. York Outer (UK Parliament constituency). This is well over ten years ago. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- The 10 year test asks whether this page, as a subject in its own right, will be relevant in 10 years. A parliamentary constituency article will be relevant in 10 years, and the 2024 general election article will be relevant in 10 years. This article forks out some projections and treats those as a subject in their own right, but they are not independently notable. The projection is of interest to pundits now, but it will only ever be independently notable if secondary sources in the future decide to treat the subject of these notional results, for some reason, separate from the election itself. That looks like the clearest of possible 10YT fails. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - The list has detailed data which will be used in the election coverage. This page is increasingly important with the upcoming general election. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is WP:NOTDATABASE, regardless of how important the data is. The data is discussed on two other pages and linked to from there for anyone who needs it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Those that want to keep this: Are there any more sources? There's two decent enough articles talking about this, but it's marginal at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 02:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Out of Afrika
- Out of Afrika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No extensive third-party coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Kenya, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Star Hill Ponies
- Star Hill Ponies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 14:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, United Kingdom, and Wales. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I found a newspaper article called "Trotting towards stardom" in the South Wales Evening Post, April 1999, and one called "Titanic tricks for TV puppets" in the Western Daily Press, April 1999. Toughpigs (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, given what was presented here and on the page (thanks Toughpigs) or at the very least Redirect to Bumper Films, if the said sources are really found insufficient. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Paul Chantler
- Paul Chantler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
These sources cover the subject only in relation to his death, nothing more, as per my WP:BEFORE. Therefore, the article fails WP:BLP1E, which states, "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
Breakdown of cited sources:
- 1: https://podcastingtoday.co.uk/one-of-the-founders-of-podcast-radio-paul-chantler-has-died/ (Single Event fails WP:BLP1E)
- 2: https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1883531/BBC-radio-executive-Paul-Chantler-dead (Single Event fails WP:BLP1E)
- 3: https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/17547788.bbc-wiltshire-celebrates-30th-birthday-three-decades-first-broadcast-1989/ (Interview type article, no coverage of the subject)
- 3: https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/tributes-paid-to-radio-exec-and-friend-of-premier-paul-chantler (Again single event tributes Fails WP:BLP1E)
- 4: https://radiotoday.co.uk/2024/03/friends-and-colleagues-pay-tribute-to-radio-executive-and-entrepreneur-paul-chantler/ (Fails WP:BLP1E)
- 5: https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/tributes-paid-after-death-of-influential-uk-radio-executive-304320/ (Again a single event fails WP:BLP1E). GrabUp - Talk 12:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. GrabUp - Talk 12:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I may be missing something, but these obit articles have been published as a result of his death - but it is *not* the event of his death that is the reason why the papers find this person notable enough to publish the article. For example one source states "He was one of radio’s most respected and popular characters". Evidently the coverage is not in the context of a single event. I do not see how WP:BLP1E applies. ResonantDistortion 16:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @ResonantDistortion, WP:BLP1E simply mentions “Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.” These sources are published in context of a single event which is his death! It is simple as that. You said “but it is *not* the event of his death that is the reason why the papers find this person notable enough to publish the article.” If you really think he is notable then cite some reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject. But these sources are just in the context of his death. GrabUp - Talk 16:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Grabup - no - it really is not that simple. You appear to be arguing a blanket statement that obituaries do not count towards notability. If I was to die tomorrow of a fairly common disease, I can assure you I would not get an editorial obituary in any publication. None of the cited obit coverage is published because the actual event of the subjects death is particularly newsworthy, but because of the accomplishments of the subject during the rather more sustained period of their life. There is an interesting discussion here which I suggest you review, [12], which includes a quote by the author of BLP1E, @Jclemens, that "but in no way, shape, or form is an obituary one event". For the record, I have no opinion on the notability of the subject nor the reliability of the sources - I am rather challenging the blanket assumption that (editorial) obituaries do not count towards notability. ResonantDistortion 02:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- All of the sources mentioned above, except one, are citing RadioToday’s report; they are not reporting independently. Additionally, the sources are filled with statements from connected individuals, tributes, and similar content. Do these types of obituaries count towards notability? The first source appears unreliable to me, as it lacks editorial details. Other sources are just repeating what others are saying. GrabUp - Talk 03:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Grabup - no - it really is not that simple. You appear to be arguing a blanket statement that obituaries do not count towards notability. If I was to die tomorrow of a fairly common disease, I can assure you I would not get an editorial obituary in any publication. None of the cited obit coverage is published because the actual event of the subjects death is particularly newsworthy, but because of the accomplishments of the subject during the rather more sustained period of their life. There is an interesting discussion here which I suggest you review, [12], which includes a quote by the author of BLP1E, @Jclemens, that "but in no way, shape, or form is an obituary one event". For the record, I have no opinion on the notability of the subject nor the reliability of the sources - I am rather challenging the blanket assumption that (editorial) obituaries do not count towards notability. ResonantDistortion 02:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @ResonantDistortion, WP:BLP1E simply mentions “Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.” These sources are published in context of a single event which is his death! It is simple as that. You said “but it is *not* the event of his death that is the reason why the papers find this person notable enough to publish the article.” If you really think he is notable then cite some reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject. But these sources are just in the context of his death. GrabUp - Talk 16:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
*Delete I agree with User:Grabup - the articles mainly say what a wonderful guy he was, but do not give the kind of information that would support notability. I noticed that some of the articles mentioned that he had co-authored a book (but none gave a title). I cannot find any publication by him nor his name in the biggest name authority file. Lamona (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I checked per the comment by Lamona, Chantler does appear to indeed be the author of several books; there has been some coverage. Including: Local Radio Journalism (1997; [13]); Essential Media Law (2022; [14]); Basic Radio Journalism (2003; [15]); Keep It Legal (2018, [16]); and JournoLists (2020; [17]). ResonantDistortion 19:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Resonant! I looked again (with the correct spelling of his name, oops!) and he does indeed have a number of published books, some of which are widely found in libraries, which is a kind of acknowledgment of importance. This puts him at or at least close to NAUTH, which makes this a keep. The books need to be added to the article. Also, for more sources ABOUT him, he does show up in G-Books, although I haven't had the time to dig through that. There could be more about him professionally. Lamona (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I have added a bibliography section to the article including the above citations with coverage of his works. I also added a further citation to another obit [18] which, while some of the text is indeed sourced to Radio Today, also includes additional editorial evidence of notability stating that "as well as working as a radio executive, Paul authored a number of important industry guides that outlined good practices in the audio world." All told - should be sufficient sourcing now in the article to push over the notability threshold. ResonantDistortion 19:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete: He's written a few books on radio journalism, but I can't find reviews of them. Career seems rather routine otherwise. The obituaries are fine, but I don't see notability. A senior programming director isn't terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are some reviews, and news coverage, of Chantlers books that are cited in the article, not a huge amount but certainly multiple - even if one of them is behind a paywall. As indicated above - there are further secondary sources stating significance of the works. ResonantDistortion 22:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- User:Oaktree b I had the same reservations but as you can see above there are reviews of his books in some radio-related journals. I mainly changed my mind when I checked on WorldCat and his book "Essential radio journalism" is held in 1,532 libraries. That is the highest number of holdings (that I can find) for books with the subject heading "Radio journalism". This tells me that he has written the book on the topic. Lamona (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep The sources/the reviews above help prove notability, I've updated my !vote Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep: These reviews of his books are somewhat meeting notability. GrabUp - Talk 05:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Weakly. The emerging consensus appears correct. Passes on being a notable author, albeit in a limited domain. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Peter Shapiro (journalist)
- Peter Shapiro (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Journalist falls short of WP:NBIO and WP:GNG tests; no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of him separate from his own writing and coverage of his books. (His book "Turn the Beat Around" would likely pass WP:NBOOK if an article were created on it, but Shapiro's notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from it.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Music. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Leaning towards keep on the subject of this article. I disagree with the nominators assessment here - particularly as the applicable guideline is WP:AUTHOR, where independent coverage of the author's work is sufficient to evidence notability; WP:INHERITED does not apply. I have found and added several independent citations to the article, including a number of RS book reviews and RS articles stating the importance of the works of Shapiro. As such I !vote to keep this article per WP:AUTHOR#3: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Article could really use expansion however. Per WP:NOPAGE I also recommend a single central article on the author and his works, rather than multiple articles on the books themselves.
- I recommend Modulations: A History of Electronic Music is redirected to Shapiro if the result of this AfD is to keep.ResonantDistortion 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)- I appreciate you adding reviews links to the article. I disagree with you on the eligibility for WP:AUTHOR #3. While the author has created a couple of independently notable works, none of the reviews or sources describe the significance of his body of work; they are about individual works. While I agree that Modulations and Turn the Beat Around are notable, I don't think there are any sources to describe them as "significant" nor do any sources discuss them in the context of Shapiro's body of work. Considering that the only available sources are reviews of individual works, the notability should go to the works themselves. Furthermore, the reviews provide virtually no WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, which would leave this article a WP:PERMASTUB without verifiable biographical information. The absence of significant coverage points toward delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- But there is enough coverage to write a non-stub article on Shapiro that is focused on his works. Frankly I find the sourcing on Modulations: A History of Electronic Music to be limited - it struggles to meet notability guidelines and it should be merged and redirected to the parent article Modulations: Cinema for the Ear, as a section in that page. As for WP:AUTHOR#3 - I am struggling to follow the above logic as the guidelines clearly do not require secondary coverage of the works as a body; a single book suffices. In this case we have at minimum one fully notable work and several more works with RS secondary coverage over a WP:SUSTAINED period, and the best place to manage this would be the single article on the author. To support this with an example, His 2005 book, The Rough Guide to Hip-Hop, has reliable sources both recommending it and stating it is important; but this is likely not enough for a standalone article, so the author article is the next best place. (Note - given the age of some of the books - we can very likely presume that offline coverage exists beyond a standard search engine). ResonantDistortion 16:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Here's what I question on criterion 3: is his work "significant and well-known"? I agree the one book meets the standard of "notable," but "significant and well-known" is different, if undefined. I find it difficult to understand how someone's work could be significant and well-known and the author of them remain sufficiently unknown that there are no reliable sources to validate even birth date or country of origin. (Sources disagree about whether Shapiro is American or British.) I'd be OK with a redirect of this page to an article for Turn the Beat Around if one were to be created, but without anything significant coverage I'm defaulting to WP:COMMONSENSE for a situation in which we can't really construct a biography. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think we are going to disagree on this one. Given there are a number of reliable sources dedicated to the subjects' other books, but are not sufficiently SIGCOV in and of themselves to create several separate articles for each, the best option (per my version of WP:COMMONSENSE!) would be the other way round: Turn the Beat Around: The Secret History of Disco should redirect to Peter Shapiro (journalist) so we have a single page for all his works. ResonantDistortion 02:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Here's what I question on criterion 3: is his work "significant and well-known"? I agree the one book meets the standard of "notable," but "significant and well-known" is different, if undefined. I find it difficult to understand how someone's work could be significant and well-known and the author of them remain sufficiently unknown that there are no reliable sources to validate even birth date or country of origin. (Sources disagree about whether Shapiro is American or British.) I'd be OK with a redirect of this page to an article for Turn the Beat Around if one were to be created, but without anything significant coverage I'm defaulting to WP:COMMONSENSE for a situation in which we can't really construct a biography. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- But there is enough coverage to write a non-stub article on Shapiro that is focused on his works. Frankly I find the sourcing on Modulations: A History of Electronic Music to be limited - it struggles to meet notability guidelines and it should be merged and redirected to the parent article Modulations: Cinema for the Ear, as a section in that page. As for WP:AUTHOR#3 - I am struggling to follow the above logic as the guidelines clearly do not require secondary coverage of the works as a body; a single book suffices. In this case we have at minimum one fully notable work and several more works with RS secondary coverage over a WP:SUSTAINED period, and the best place to manage this would be the single article on the author. To support this with an example, His 2005 book, The Rough Guide to Hip-Hop, has reliable sources both recommending it and stating it is important; but this is likely not enough for a standalone article, so the author article is the next best place. (Note - given the age of some of the books - we can very likely presume that offline coverage exists beyond a standard search engine). ResonantDistortion 16:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate you adding reviews links to the article. I disagree with you on the eligibility for WP:AUTHOR #3. While the author has created a couple of independently notable works, none of the reviews or sources describe the significance of his body of work; they are about individual works. While I agree that Modulations and Turn the Beat Around are notable, I don't think there are any sources to describe them as "significant" nor do any sources discuss them in the context of Shapiro's body of work. Considering that the only available sources are reviews of individual works, the notability should go to the works themselves. Furthermore, the reviews provide virtually no WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, which would leave this article a WP:PERMASTUB without verifiable biographical information. The absence of significant coverage points toward delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - With the addition of new sources, I don't see any particular concern with notability. Shankargb (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. To elucidate why I think the (many) book reviews of Shapiro's work don't constitute WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, here's what the sigcov policy states: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Right now, the article as it stands is just a few sentences, hardly any about Shapiro himself and about his work, and the sourcing doesn't really permit anything further to be written. As noted above, we don't even have the most basic information about his life. Thus my argument that the books are notable but that the author is not. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on whether WP:AUTHOR is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep: I've also found this [19], but it also appears on the article author's (Howard Blas') website. I suppose it's a RS Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)- Comment: and this in Variety [20] Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- I understand this article refers to a different Peter Shapiro (concert promoter) - who also writes books on the music business. Which makes source finding doubly tricky! ResonantDistortion 05:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as I find no coverage for this individual, sources I'd identified are for a different person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Oaktree b - in the article are cited 14 secondary refs covering the books written by the subject of this article. This includes seven full page reviews of one of his works, multiple other reviews of his other works and further WP:RS stating the importance and recommending these other works. I personally do not see how WP:NAUTHOR is not met, and there's easily enough coverage to, at minimum, build a start class article based upon the works this individual has created (it took me about 5 minutes to expand the article by ~400%). ResonantDistortion 06:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Bermuda Smash Invitational
- Bermuda Smash Invitational (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable cricket tournament which fails WP:GNG, WP:NCRIC, and WP:EVENT. AA (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AA (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep There is what looks to be WP:GNG on the tournament in media, although a lot of it from Bermudian related sources. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Najma Akhtar
- Najma Akhtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Dowrylauds (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: No coverage found for a musician, this appears to be a different person [21]. The sourcing used in the article now isn't enough to meet notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in this reliable AllMusic staff written bio here it states that her second album reached No. 4 on the Billboard World Music chart and that another of her albums sold 50,000 copies in Japan. Some album reviews here, and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Literature of England
- Literature of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is nearly entirely covered by the article British literature. Quoting from the lead of that article, "Anglo-Saxon (Old English) literature is included, [in this article] and there is some discussion of Latin and Anglo-Norman literature". The parts not talked about there are under the other articles listed in the main topic hatnotes of each of the proposed article's sections. The only one not mentioned here in British lit is Hebrew literature from England, which as well has its own separate article. Your average reader, when typing "literature of England", is likely looking for the literature of England (covered in the British lit article) that is in English. Based off this, I propose to blank and redirect and merge this article into the aforementioned British literature article. This is done with many other literature country articles, seen in literature of France, which redirects to French literature, and literature of Germany, Spain, etc. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, United Kingdom, and England. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Unsure - briefly my problem with almost all pages of the "literature of x place" is that the subject is impossibly broad and therefore inclusion/exclusion decisions are at the whim of editors. That said there clearly are academics writing about it such as 1 - which itself has a more interesting lede para than the WP page - so by the WP:GNG it appears to have the level of independent scholarly RS for inclusion. I'd like to hear other thoughts to help clarify in my own mind whether (or how) this page could/should be kept. JMWt (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that this is not a deletion (or redirect) proposal for English literature, which entirely covers any content from the article literature of England that may be about literature from England in English. I'm aware plenty of sources exist for English literature in English, as this is why we have the former article, but the proposed article is about literature in England mostly not in English, which, as said above, is covered by either British literature or the other main articles. A possible remedy to this is maybe changing the potential new redirect target of this page from British literature to English literature, although the latter is not exclusive to England itself and is about literature written in English as a whole. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it is you that are confused or me. As far as I'm concerned
- English literature refers to literature in the English language
- Literature of England refers to literature produced in England in any language.
- I do not understand why you keep implying that the Literature of England must necessarily be in the English language nor why we should take your word for that. JMWt (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not trying to imply that, more so that in an article about English literature (meaning any literature written in England) — literature of England — the only content in the article is about literature that is not in English. By saying this I'm not implying that the article should only be about English literature in English, rather that the English literature in English is already fully covered in the articles of English literature and British literature, and as the latter is particular to the British Isles and the former is not as you said, the content from Literature of England (the proposed article) should be either redirected or incorporated into British lit. The British lit article does not have to be about just literature from GB in English, as is already said in the lead of the article. Another alternative would be to make Literature of England a disambig page to show the different articles of various languages of literature from England, although for now I'm staying with my original argument. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it is you that are confused or me. As far as I'm concerned
- Keep in mind that this is not a deletion (or redirect) proposal for English literature, which entirely covers any content from the article literature of England that may be about literature from England in English. I'm aware plenty of sources exist for English literature in English, as this is why we have the former article, but the proposed article is about literature in England mostly not in English, which, as said above, is covered by either British literature or the other main articles. A possible remedy to this is maybe changing the potential new redirect target of this page from British literature to English literature, although the latter is not exclusive to England itself and is about literature written in English as a whole. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge, not delete to either British literature or English literature, as appropriate. My understanding is that "English literature" is the literature of England, irrespective of what language it's written in; I presume the same is true of "British literature". Merger is the correct procedure if there's potentially useful material here, even if the contribution is minimal, or it turns out that everything is already included; in that case the article would still become a redirect to one of the relevant articles, but readers checking the article history would see that any relevant content here was reviewed and included in the target article before this became a redirect. The difference between merger and deletion is sometimes subtle, but still important. P Aculeius (talk 13:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- The original proposal was never to delete the article, as I said in the wording above, it is to blank and redirect the article. There is nothing to merge, and thus blanking and redirecting, (per WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R) is an acceptable means of dealing with sitations such as this, and again per those policies, it is advised that controversial blanks and redirects are discussed on AFD, as I did here, even if the goal is not deletion.
- Also, remember that it is best practice to sign your talk page comments by adding four tildes at the end of a message. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Blanking and redirecting is pretty much deletion—and this is "Articles for deletion", not "Articles for discussion". A merge doesn't necessarily involve moving things to other articles, but it ensures that editors know that the whole contents of an article—or anything useful in it—has been covered at the target article. Whether there's useful content isn't determined by whether it's duplicative of something better elsewhere. As I said, the distinction between merger and deletion is sometimes a subtle one, but important: if you just "blank and redirect" without indicating that the article was merged, editors might reasonably infer that no effort was made to ensure that the topic was fully covered at the target article or other appropriate places. And really no significant effort is required on anybody's part to do a merge in an instance where the contents are fully covered, so what's the objection?
- Also, remember that any editor likely to comment on procedure probably knows how to sign a comment, and doesn't need an explanation of how to do it. It's easy enough to forget to type four tildes when editing one's own comments. P Aculeius (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, I see your point and I mostly agree, though it doesn't really seem right to call it a "merge" when no content is being merged into the new article, and incorporating parts of an existing article into a different one and then redirecting/deleting it is different than simply not incorporating any content and simply blanking and redirecting. We do seem to basically be on the same page though and I'll change the wording for not wanting to argue. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, remember that any editor likely to comment on procedure probably knows how to sign a comment, and doesn't need an explanation of how to do it. It's easy enough to forget to type four tildes when editing one's own comments. P Aculeius (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- There are American literature and Scottish literature articles, not sure why England would be an exception. There is overlap with British literature but the solution could be to move some of the content from there to English literature rather than have a British article primarily about England. Peter James (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as consensus right now is unclear. If this AFD is closed as a Merge, editors can merge the article's contents to more than one article. But we use XFDcloser to close AFDs and it can only handle listing one target article. So, if that was the closure, would it be to British literature? Also remember that we are only talking about how to close this discussion, if this closure was for a Merge, editors undertaking that merge could chose to use all, some or none of the article content in a merger. It's up to whomever editor volunteers to handle a merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
::There seems to be consensus to merge the article into the mentioned British literature article, although in practice I don't see what would actually need to be moved since the article Literature of England is only really about literature from England not in the English language — it consists solely of summaries of the articles Anglo-Latin literature, Anglo-Norman literature, and Early English Jewish literature. Either way, yes, the merge would be to British literature, and as you said, the actual content can be moved to any article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Retracting for now, see below comment. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Well I don't agree with that (and to make it clearer I'm now !voting !keep) and at least one other !voter doesn't so I don't think as the nom you should be instructing the closer as to what is or isn't consensus. The fact that the page is unfinished is not a reason to merge or redirect. To reiterate what I said previously, the topic of this page is not the same as for British literature. JMWt (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- It might, however, be the same as "English Literature", if we include all literature written in England or by English writers, irrespective of the language they wrote in. That's my understanding of the term, since it certainly includes Old English and Middle English writing, and at least in the academic sense does not include English-language literature written elsewhere in the world, or at least not all English-language literature, American Literature being considered a distinct and mostly non-overlapping topic. I note, however, that our article on English Literature expressly states otherwise—there seems to be a debate on the talk page about its scope, but that doesn't concern the issue of non-English literature of England. Actually I'm a little confused about why there aren't more discussions there, seeing as I don't see any archived talk pages...
- You're correct in that an article shouldn't be deleted or merged because it's incomplete. The fact that the topic hasn't been significantly changed or expanded since 2016, and remains a brief four paragraphs long, doesn't prove that it has no potential for expansion. However, it does mean that if the subject is or could conveniently be covered as fully as it is here, as part of "English Literature" or another, more comprehensive article, then there is little need for this article to duplicate that coverage, unless and until the topic becomes unwieldy as part of another article, at which time it could be split off and recreated under this or another appropriate title.
- The argument for merger isn't an argument that this article has no value or that its subject is invalid: it's that the best way to treat the topic is as part of a broader or more comprehensive treatment that already exists, and the merger process is designed to ensure that nothing useful is lost. The merging editor or editors would be obliged to ensure that the usable contents here are fully covered in other articles before this title becomes a redirect to one of them, and that if necessary hatnotes direct readers from one target to another. P Aculeius (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Well I don't agree with that (and to make it clearer I'm now !voting !keep) and at least one other !voter doesn't so I don't think as the nom you should be instructing the closer as to what is or isn't consensus. The fact that the page is unfinished is not a reason to merge or redirect. To reiterate what I said previously, the topic of this page is not the same as for British literature. JMWt (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus on what should happen or even on a Merge target article if this is closed as Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Others
Categories
Deletion reviews
Miscellaneous
Proposed deletions
- Higgledy House (via WP:PROD on 8 September 2023)
Redirects
Templates
See also
- Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom/Article alerts, a bot-maintained listing of a variety of changes affecting United Kingdom related pages including deletion discussions
England
Jonas Pilling
- Jonas Pilling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The justification for this subject having an article is the long-running dispute between him and his parishioners, which did attract some attention from local press at the time, but it seems that much of this content could simply be rolled into the article on St Mark's Church, Huddersfield, where he was the vicar for a number of years. It is not clear to me why Pilling himself needs an article of his own. Leonstojka (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The substance of the article is bigger than Pilling himself, but he is the vehicle for the publication of that substance, because he was the subject of the event concerned. For whatever reason, he was unable to fulfil his task as a vicar in one of the most terribly deprived areas of England at the time. When the Bishop did not appear to be doing anything about this tragedy for the local poor, the local newspaper said sadly that there was much work to do (for the poor and deprived). The fact is, the Bishop left it far too long before resolving the issue for the local congregation. To understand what happened, we need the full story (as far as we can know it) of Pilling. We cannot surmise, speculate or give opinion, but what we can do is give all the facts and give the reader a chance to get a full idea of what happened. In order to give all the facts, we need the full article on Pilling. To put the whole Pilling article into the church article would be to overwhelm the latter. Besides all that, the Pilling article is in itself an interesting study on how the Anglican church dealt (or didn't deal at all) with inadequate and/or suffering priests. In this case at least, the Bishop just let it be.
- Since the severe problems began in 1905, we cannot blame the interruption of World War I for the bishop's lack of action. We cannot know why the bishop behaved like that, or exactly why Pilling behaved like that, but as the article stands, we can at least look at the facts. And the facts are important for the history of Huddersfield, for the history of the church, for the history of Anglican priests, and for the history of Pilling himself. Not all Wikipedia articles have to be about heroes and success stories. Sometimes we can learn from the mistakes of the past. One thing for sure: we should not shut our eyes to what happened in Huddersfield in Pilling's time, and nor should we actively try to minimise its importance by deleting the article and shrinking it to fit into a dusty corner of another article.. Storye book (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I think
some attention from local press
understates it a bit. This unusual dispute received coverage in papers across the UK over a period of years - e.g. the article quotes reports in the Aberdeen Journal and The Cornishman, which certainly aren't local to Huddersfield. Merging it into the article about the church itself would make that article rather long and unbalanced. Adam Sampson (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I think
Demons Bridge railway station
- Demons Bridge railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG. Of the three sources, two are trivial mentions and one does not mention the station at all. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Stillington railway station
- Stillington railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG. Of the three sources, one is a trivial mention and two do not mention the station at all. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Saltersgate Cottage railway station
- Saltersgate Cottage railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG. Of the two sources, one does not mention the station at all. The other is a personal website (likely fails WP:RS) with a total of five sentences about the station. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Stanhope and Tyne Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Simpasture railway station
- Simpasture railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG. Of the seven sources, two are trivial mentions, four don't mention the station at all, and one (Priestley) has brief mentions of a station of similar name but many decades earlier. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Macintyre Art Advisory
- Macintyre Art Advisory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY. Nothing for the past several years has been happening in this article. I also tried to look for a source but was unable to. GoodHue291 (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
James Sunter
- James Sunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Don't see how this individual is notable enough for a page, both in the general sense and in the parameters for which clerics are notable. Much of the article is unreferenced, and some of the sources at the bottom are only brief mentions. One actually focuses on the son of the subject. Leonstojka (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Christianity, England, and Australia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Eze Harper
- Eze Harper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced rugby BLP. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV; all that came up was this transactional announcement. A possible redirect target is List of Barrow Raiders players. JTtheOG (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Joel Wicks
- Joel Wicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Redirect to List of London Broncos players as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this rugby league player. JTtheOG (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Dilly Braimoh
- Dilly Braimoh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of any notability. The BFI source which would have been useful returns a 404 error. The other from IMDB is unreliable. Searches reveal very little, certainly nothing that adds to notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 13:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Cloudreach
- Cloudreach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
2A02:6B6B:16C:0:D8BF:FBCC:5819:FF15 proposed deletion with the rationale:
Reads like promotional material or like the About page of the company. Probably conflict of interest. No substance.
However, since Cloudreach was discussed at AfD before, PROD cannot be used. I have converted this to an AfD for them. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Computing. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: This was previously deleted and for good reasons. Most reliable sources are not about the company but about bigger companies who bought the business, and even those are flimsy and don't justify an article about this. Additionally the company website doesn't even exist anymore which is another reason to think this doesn't pass WP:N. 2A02:6B6B:58:0:F935:2F9:817C:F0F4 (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Are you the same person who proposed deletion? (The first two segments of the IPv6 addresses are identical.) If so, you need to disclose this fact, to avoid creating an
illusion of support
(WP:BADSOCK). jlwoodwa (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Are you the same person who proposed deletion? (The first two segments of the IPv6 addresses are identical.) If so, you need to disclose this fact, to avoid creating an
Jason Windsor (businessman)
- Jason Windsor (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO and WP:NCRIC. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cricket, and England. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Simple search seems to bringing up GNG passing coverage such as this. Looks to be plenty out there. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Tony Curzon Price
- Tony Curzon Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO because the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES are primary, including biographies and the like by related parties. No particular claim to notability is textually clear. JFHJr (㊟) 03:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, Politics, Economics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
- Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Continuing the assault on the Anglo-Australian cricket fanfict. Full of cruft. Duplicated infoboxes. Similar articles have been deleted before, and a large amount are currently almost deleted here. Before voting for merge, remember a lot of these articles is already on the main biography ones. Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:
- Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bill Brown with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lindsay Hassett with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ian Johnson with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bill Johnston with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ray Lindwall with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Arthur Morris with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Don Tallon with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ernie Toshack with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ricky Ponting with the Australian cricket team in India in 2008–09 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mitchell Johnson with the Australian cricket team in the 2013–14 Ashes series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Removed redirects
Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Procedural comment Maybe should have taken a little more time--many of the above are redirects which should go to WP:RFD instead. --Finngall talk 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Since its a lot of similar articles, I will wait till they are deleted (if consensus is reached) and then list them there Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge. I'll repeat what I said at the Neil Harvey (in this tour) AfD, that holds true for each article here:
"We have an article about every international match played on this tour; we have an article about the series; one about the Australian team playing the series; and one about the player. Any information that doesn't already belong in those three articles is, IMHO, too much detail to be covered in an encyclopedia: it is also essentially prosified statistics that we're not a database [...] While these articles are clearly a labor of love, at some point we need to recognize that not every incident in a month-long cricket tour is worth incorporating into Wikipedia. It may be the most famous example of an Ashes series, but there's been one approximately every two years for over a century, and it's hard to argue that similar articles could not be written about every player in the more recent ones, relying on online news coverage. Not every verifiable detail is encyclopedic. I'm inclined to believe the international matches, and the tour itself, deserve articles, but it's hard to justify coverage beyond that."
Aside: I suggest purging the redirects from the list now, as there will most certainly be procedural back-and-forth that will muddy the waters. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)- I will get to it but I feel that if this discussion goes through theres also no need for the redirects. They are dead weight. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge all to Australian cricket team in England in 1948 - There is no doubt that the quality of writing in these articles is good and someone (or a few someones) spent a great deal of time. However, the amount of duplicated info across this series of articles is staggering. How everyone in the peer review process failed to come to the obvious conclusion that this is an unnecessary content fork truly boggles my mind. – PeeJay 10:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Obviously the Ricky Ponting and Mitchell Johnson articles should be merged to their respective tour articles (I missed them at the bottom of the list). – PeeJay 10:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- A lot of content is already in the main articles. Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't doubt it. My !vote is a call for any relevant content not already in the main articles to be moved there, and then for these articles to be deleted. – PeeJay 13:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- You specified merge all and didnt mention delete. Also for the peer reviews, they were reviewed in the 2000s. Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't doubt it. My !vote is a call for any relevant content not already in the main articles to be moved there, and then for these articles to be deleted. – PeeJay 13:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Procedural comment 2 - the Keith Miller 1948 article is a featured article and a merge proposal less than two months ago reached a consensus to merge to the main article which has yet to be actioned. A merge discussion regarding the Ricky Ponting 2008 article was started in March 2024 and remains open. JP (Talk) 17:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge all. Well written fancruft. Desertarun (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Liam Carberry
- Liam Carberry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced rugby BLP. All I found were transactional announcements (1, 2). Possible redirect targets include List of Widnes Vikings players and List of Wigan Warriors players. JTtheOG (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Jon Molloy
- Jon Molloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced rugby BLP. All I found were transactional announcements (1, 2, 3) and a routine injury update (1). There seem to be multiple redirect candidates (List of Wakefield Trinity players, List of Salford Red Devils players). JTtheOG (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Some non-routine coverage here. I'm a bit surprised I couldn't find more for someone who made nearly 50 Super League appearances. Perhaps someone can add more using offline sources, as a lot of websites unfortunately haven't kept archives during the time period he played in. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Scott Spaven
- Scott Spaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced rugby BLP. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was this transactional announcement and a couple sentences here. A potential redirect is List of Hull Kingston Rovers players. JTtheOG (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Cutover
- Cutover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:SUSTAINED notability has not been established with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, England, and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: PROMO as well, this is sourced straight from press releases and venture capital sites. I don't find anything extra we can add to get it to notability... Oaktree b (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: just a huge promotion. Cos (X + Z) 16:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, as it contains promotional content. hamster717 (discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs) 01:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Hayler coat of arms
- Hayler coat of arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article only cites unreliable sources, and there does not appear to be significant coverage of the coat of arms, if one even exists. toweli (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and England. toweli (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Cited only to dubious sources, which are wrong anyway. Coats of arms in England are granted to individuals not families. They are inherited by the direct heir but collatoral relations have differenced arms. See cadency. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete The poor quality of sources combined with the contradictions it shows when compared against info on other coats of arms leads me to believe that there is something seriously wrong with this article. Keivan.fTalk 19:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Dani Cavallaro
- Dani Cavallaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find anything on this author in both print and online sources despite them writing 28 books. I cannot confirm even the most basic of biographical information (age, country, etc), nor even whether this is even a real person. What if this is simply a collection of authors who publish under this name? I cannot find a single newspaper article on this person, or any kind of faculty biography attached to any kind of institution. There is a short overview that lacks any biographical information on one of her publisher websites. I cannot confirm whether this person is an academic or has any kind of academic background.
Doing online searches, you find people spending years asking the exact same questions and not coming up with anything definitive:
https://www.animemangastudies.com/2014/03/19/who-is-dani-cavallaro-part-1/
https://www.animemangastudies.com/2014/03/21/who-is-dani-cavallaro-part-2/
In principle, her works could be used as sources for Wikipedia (not every author is notable enough to have their own page). There are a handful of academic reviews of her books but this is simply not enough. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as article creator. I understand the concerns you're raising in your nomination, but they seem to be primarily concerns about the subject herself, which is a separate discussion from whether the subject merits a Wikipedia article. If your argument is that Cavallaro does not qualify for assessment under the academic notability guideline, note that she also meets criteria 1 and 3 of the creative professionals guideline: her Google Scholar results indicate that her work is widely cited, some of them having hundreds of citations, her work has been the subject of plentiful reviews in addition to the ones already present in the article, and physical copies of her works seem to be widespread, with this book and this book being available in hundreds of libraries. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- She fails literally every single criteria for the academic notability guideline (and rather badly I might add). She's made zero impact in her field, and merely spams out a lot of very low quality books that get trashed in reviews or cited in other low quality scholarship. She does not publish in any peer reviewed journal at all, and does not hold any position in any unviersity or academic setting, and does not go to any conferences (or even fan conventions). In the end, I can't even prove she's a real person and not 3 teenagers in a trench coat. The article will be permanent stub status simply because there's no sources and likely never will be. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not certain whether the academic guideline applies in this case, but that's pretty irrelevant as I've already demonstrated how she passes the guideline for creative professionals. Again, none of the concerns you're raising here are relevant to the question of whether Cavallaro merits an article. A person does not need to have a public image or appear at events in order to be notable. Even if you think Cavallaro might be "
3 teenagers in a trench coat
", that isn't a reason to delete the article. Should William Shakespeare's article be deleted just because the authenticity of his work has been questioned for hundreds of years? Yes, that's a somewhat hyperbolic comparison, but quite to the point — I haven't seen that claim presented anywhere other than a single blog post, and I regard it as a fringe theory. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)- There is actual proof Shakespeare existed beyond people saying he wrote some works at least. What is there to say about somebody with no known personal details or expertise? XeCyranium (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, bringing up the Shakespeare thing was probably unnecessary, but I believe the point stands. None of Wikipedia's notability guidelines require verification of any personal details. In most cases, what's important is that the subject receives significant coverage in reliable sources; authors get slightly more leeway with the consideration of their works and how widely cited they are. Cavallaro meets both of those thresholds. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is actual proof Shakespeare existed beyond people saying he wrote some works at least. What is there to say about somebody with no known personal details or expertise? XeCyranium (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not certain whether the academic guideline applies in this case, but that's pretty irrelevant as I've already demonstrated how she passes the guideline for creative professionals. Again, none of the concerns you're raising here are relevant to the question of whether Cavallaro merits an article. A person does not need to have a public image or appear at events in order to be notable. Even if you think Cavallaro might be "
- She fails literally every single criteria for the academic notability guideline (and rather badly I might add). She's made zero impact in her field, and merely spams out a lot of very low quality books that get trashed in reviews or cited in other low quality scholarship. She does not publish in any peer reviewed journal at all, and does not hold any position in any unviersity or academic setting, and does not go to any conferences (or even fan conventions). In the end, I can't even prove she's a real person and not 3 teenagers in a trench coat. The article will be permanent stub status simply because there's no sources and likely never will be. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Plenty of books/papers written by her, nothing about her. I don't find much of anything outside of books she's written. No coverage, no critical reviews of her works, unsure about scholarly notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)- @Oaktree b: Did you click the links I provided in my comment above? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I did. The site is listed as a RS [22], but we need more than two articles from the same site to establish notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm confused. I'm not referring to the nomination but to my comment, where I showed her work has been widely cited and reviewed. Also, I will note that Anime and Manga Studies is likely not reliable as a whole, being a self-published source; the WikiProject only recommends a single page of references as a starting point for further research. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I did. The site is listed as a RS [22], but we need more than two articles from the same site to establish notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Oaktree b: Did you click the links I provided in my comment above? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Visual arts, Anime and manga, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The Jstor link provided above shows ample reviews of her written works, easily passing AUTHOR notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Commment: Since the author's reliability has come up here, notifying of a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion about this author. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Dani Cavallaro. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Reliability aside, her works have been reviewed enough for notability as an author. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
George Walker (educator)
- George Walker (educator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC/WP:NSCIENTIST. Third-party (independent, non-primary) sources lending significant in-depth coverage appear not to exist, and are unlikely to crop up in the future. JFHJr (㊟) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, South Africa, Switzerland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet
- Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject fails WP:GNG because only insubstantial coverage is indicated in articles that are all topically about her spouse, or published by her own school. She fails WP:GNG today and is unlikely to garner more substantial coverage in the future due to her being so dead. JFHJr (㊟) 05:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, Poetry, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I have added in reviews of two of her publications. She wrote under the name Elizabeth Young, which makes searching for discussions of her work a challenge. I suspect there is more coverage of her work, but it requires sifting through articles about similar people. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I find reviews for multiple books. I also added back some of the text that had been removed prior to the AFD nomination. While this text needs citations (and is now marked as such), it is useful to know in order to find the sources needed. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Harry Dunn (defender)
- Harry Dunn (defender) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm a bit unsure about this one, as he seemed to have a rather robust career, but it was entirely at the non-league, semi-pro level. There doesn't seem to be much of any WP:SIGCOV outside of this local newspaper coverage. I'd like to see what consensus is here, as it feels like a "delete" for me, but I'm curious what others think. Anwegmann (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Football figures whose playing and manager career is mostly confined to small clubs do not have exact material to support WP:GNG. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 09:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Scarborough F.C. players where he should be added. GiantSnowman 14:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know, I don't think redirecting to the players article helps, seems to be an important figure for the club in the 1970s and 1980s, first as a player then as a manager. I'd prefer to keep, however if not, suggest a redirect to the club page Scarborough F.C. His name is mentioned four times on the page, twice as player of the year and twice as manager. As the content on the article is sourced, it maybe a good idea to merge some of the content. Deletion doesn't help anyone. Govvy (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Morgan Williams (footballer, born 2004)
- Morgan Williams (footballer, born 2004) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:SIGCOV, as everything I could find is either South London local press or directly from club websites. Anwegmann (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - 5 appearances as a professional with ongoing career, there is coverage out there such as this and this, does not need deleting. GiantSnowman 14:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep per whats on the article, sources above. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – Per @GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Fails GNG. I couldn't find any sigcov of him. The above sources are a routine match report and a routine transfer story. The "ongoing career" argument should officially go the way of NFOOTBALL. Articles are for things that pass GNG now not at some time possibly in the future. Dougal18 (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Jason Thompson (figure skater)
- Jason Thompson (figure skater) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable figure skater despite one national championship win (for Great Britain). Nothing since retirement. Google search yields nothing but wikis, scoring databases, and one article mentioning that the European Championships where he finished in 25th place were held at the same rink where he trained. Big whoop. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and England. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge or redirect I deprodded this with the rationale "This should be merged or redirected, but there are several plausible targets and I don't know enough about the topic area to unilaterally decide which is best." and I stand by that comment. I oppose straight deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
A Formal Sigh
- A Formal Sigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I wasn't able to find anything other than mentions in reliable sources. For example, they're mentioned in this interview in The Quietus ("[...] says Gayna Rose Madder, one of the scene’s most forward-thinking artists with Shiny Two Shiny and A Formal Sigh") and in issue 313 of SLUG Magazine ("Both were in A Formal Sigh, which had the distinction of having done a legendary Peel Session before they split from that band"). Using Newspapers.com, I also found mere mentions from the period of the band's existence. The article was created by User:Markpeters, who has the same exact name as the bassist. toweli (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. toweli (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Only one reference present. Beside that, except a mention from BBC nothing else came up on Google. RolandSimon (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Spitalfields Market
- Spitalfields Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is a duplicate of Old Spitalfields Market which has existed since 2004. The page does not relate to New Spitalfields Market which has its own page. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Food and drink, and Shopping malls. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Restore dab for which its useful. Star Mississippi 12:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm leaning to restoring the dab page. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Dean Webb
- Dean Webb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet the notability guideline. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 21:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note to the closing admin. I would like ask please that if by chance the consensus leans towards deletion, we look at redirecting the page to Ivor Kirchin, Basil Kirchin as he was a member of The Kirchin Band for a year, having replaced the featured singer Rory Blackwell in 1957. Webb stayed with the band for a year and I believe sang on at least two recordings. He was involved with both Ivor and Basil. This would also preserve the history. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, there's a couple of good articles in the The British Newspaper archive. Unfortunately its pay so you can read thing. There's also this article with his picture below,
Disc, No. 67 Week ending May 16, 1959 - Page 7 THE BLACKSMITH WHO PREFERRED BEAT TO THE ANVIL CHORUS, Big break
I haven't got time to comb through the other UK music trade magazines and a lot of the earlier ones can't be word searched. So it's a case of having to go through all the content of this often faded but thankfully preserved historical music info.
I'm satisfied to call this a keep. Karl Twist (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Henry Robinson (scientist)
- Henry Robinson (scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't doubt that he was indeed librarian of the Yorkshire Philosphical Society during the dates given but in no world is that a claim to notability. In 1850 he was listed as auditor and council member of the same,[1] and that's all I got from a BEFORE. Seems like a very odd choice for an article to be honest. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and England. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Way too little here to justify notability under WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. For a little while, I thought this Henry Robinson might have been the civil engineer who was the author of "River Pollution" and Sewerage and Sewer Disposal (1896). I don't think that Henry Robinson is notable either, but his writing was at least influential in the late 19th century debate in England about whether rivers were inherently "self-cleaning" or whether pollution needed to be managed. However, they're not the same person. This is clearly about the Henry Robinson who is the subject of this "article"; his son Charles Best Norcliffe discusses his "late" father. That was published in 1884, so the author of the 1896 book cannot be the same man. With that in mind, I have absolutely no idea what this article was trying to accomplish. I think I can find references for the claims it makes, but why? There's nothing here or, so far as I can tell, elsewhere to suggest any particular level of notability or importance. Lubal (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Not enough here for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC).
- delete the only references to him were in the YPS minutes and the York directories. I suspect that he may have been a fine fellow, but not especially notable even during his lifetime — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 11:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Is this him [23]? Talks a bit about the person, but still not enough for keeping the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no allegation of notability nor any evidence therefor. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Apoapsis Records
- Apoapsis Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
article reads like an advertisement (fails WP:NOTADVERT), with an overreliance on primary sources, for a record label with only two artists signed (fails WP:INHERITORG). if any part of this article can be salvaged at all, it would work better as a part of either Vasileios Angelis or Apostolos Angelis (composer), or simply redirected to either of these two pages. Free Realist 9 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Free Realist 9 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Greece and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is a splendid merge candidate that did not need to come to AfD. I see no reason why a redlink would be a better solution. Chubbles (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NCORP, delete everything else crated by OrangedJuice for obvious self-promotion or public relations editing. Graywalls (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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 Draftify. Malinaccier (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Lindelwe Lesley Ndlovu
- Lindelwe Lesley Ndlovu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another in a questionable series of articles created by this user on African businessmen and companies. Sources in this one are all WP:TRADES, WP:INTERVIEWS, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS,WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, or links to data aggregators and mass awards that don't confer notability in and of themselves. No WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. Nice resume (and the article reads like one), but not notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Non-notable business person, most coverage is what seem like non-RS, but I can't confirm which are or aren't. Happy to revisit if others can confirm the quality of the sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Zimbabwe, Singapore, France, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify, I would like to take my time and re-write it. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- As nominator I would alternatively support draftification, but since another editor has !voted to delete, we now need to let the discussion proceed. (I can't do a non-admin closure in this instance.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
Sam's Chicken
- Sam's Chicken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
From this IP editor, here:
After attempting to clean up the article (with resistance), it has instead become apparent that it's a pretty clear fail of WP:NCORP. The article currently has 3 sources: First, a primary report from a local government council about a small fine for illegal dumping of trash, shouldn't even be used, let alone establishes any kind of notability. Second, a Standard article about SCs being targeted in attacks for ethnic reasons isn't really about the company. It might belong on some kind of "Sinhalese-Tamil relations in London" article or something, but it doesn't help establish notability of the company itself. Last, a Guardian article about SC along with other fast food chicken joints being investigated for poor worker treatment/conditions. This is certainly the best, but it's not enough on its own, and it doesn't go into any real depth about SC itself. I was able to find no more sourcing beyond the above, either. TL;DR, this is a small local fast food chain, and there just isn't enough about it to warrant an article.
Zanahary (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the IP editor. I tried to protect this article from spam promotion, but I did not stop to consider that the available reliable sources were non-existent. Be done with it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I initially thought the article might have a bit of notability but on a deeper analysis it is true the article is very weak and should be deleted Wiiformii (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Looks tasty, but GNG doesn't stand for generalized noshing guidelines. Actually mildly surprised by how little independent coverage about a place with this many locations, but if the sources don't exist, neither can the entry. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as this is clearly not notable per WP:NCORP or WP:N. OhHaiMark (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete for the reasons already stated of lack of notability. The article hasn't gotten any better in the eight years since it was created (compare) and is unlikely to in future, short of a radical change of circumstances for the subject. — Scott • talk 14:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per the anonymous editor's unofficial-turned-official nomination statement. I did my best to correct the issues others raised only to find that once I'd cleared the article of junk, there was barely anything left. It's frustrating because while I understand others' notability concerns, I'm skeptical that a restaurant chain with dozens of locations has little to no potential to get there. City of Silver 18:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This is a UK fast food chain with 44 branches. Mostly in London, but as far north as Northampton, and as far south as the Isle of Wight. No one has done a proper WP:BEFORE search. There are plenty more sources out there. For example:
- 'I taste-tested KFC and Sam's and now I have a new fried chicken favourite'
- WHAT THE CLUCK! FULL EXTENT OF SAM’S CHICKEN FOOD HYGIENE RATING REVEALED
- Isle of Wight takeaway Sam's Chicken improves hygiene rating
- CHICKEN LOVERS CLUCKING HAPPY AS SAM’S CHICKEN RE-OPENS
- Bid to set up Essex's first Sam's Chicken in Southend
- SAM’S CHICKEN BRINGS FRESH TASTE TO RYDE
- Food in Herts: Five chicken shops in Hertfordshire that are 'better' than KFC
- Does Harrow have too many chicken shops?
- Kettering piri piri chicken shop plan gets green light despite nearby competitors' pleas
Hope that is enough. More available. Edwardx (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Edwardx and thankyou for doing that reasearch. Does enough to satisfy notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Based on the sources above. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Georgie Campbell
- Georgie Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:EVENTCRIT; subject is notable only for passing away. As this is a recent death, WP:BLP1E should probably apply here. See also WP:PSEUDO. Firestar464 (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Horse racing. Firestar464 (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Looks like a WP:BLP1E with little chance of WP:LASTING BrigadierG (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I think that as a top level 5* rider and on Team GB for FEI Nations Cup on multiple occasions she was already WP:NSPORT relevant, and lack of previous article probably more reflective of the overall poor coverage of equestrian sport on WP. Suggest that there should be enough for an article. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- There are achievement standards set out for equestrian sports at WP:NEQUESTRIAN - generally, a medal is required to be notable, not just participation. BrigadierG (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Aside from this AfD, they were only ever guidelines but it was my understanding that WP:NSPORT, within which WP:NEQUESTRIAN falls, had been abandoned in favour of general WP:GNG notability, in-part so as to avoid the proliferation of single sourced historic competitors in favour of properly sourced, judged-on-their-own-merits, robust articles. A process which has clear merits, and without inbuilt asymmetry of certain sports having literally thousands of active competitors with WP:BLP articles and other sports granted three medalists at a time. If you permit a further example of the difficulties of the guidelines and how they could be perceived as a barrier to the collation of information; WP:RU/N had the criteria of only the semifinalists from the Women's World Cup, a tournament which takes place once every four years. However, in the pandemic the tournament was postponed for 18 months so a strict interpretation of the guidelines (which I saw being argued) would have no new 15-a-side female rugby union players permissible for over five and a half years. A hindrance to WP as an up-to-date information source, which an online encyclopaedia should have the capacity to excel at. Hildreth gazzard (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are achievement standards set out for equestrian sports at WP:NEQUESTRIAN - generally, a medal is required to be notable, not just participation. BrigadierG (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete If this person is only notable for passing then they fail the notability test, unless proven otherwise. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 15:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I noticed the article about her husband, and put up an AfD for that as well. Posting here as this would've been bundled had I noticed them at the same time. Firestar464 (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Article satisfies WP:GNG. Not uncommon to gain information from obituaries. Hildreth Gazzard (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I started this article on a distinguished equestrian. Strange to see that the article on her husband was also AfD. This page has been expanded on since I started it. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to get an evaluation of additions to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Think there is enough here to satisfy WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
List of battles in England
- List of battles in England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to
- List of battles in Albania Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Albania
- List of battles in Algeria Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Algeria
- List of battles in Belgium Draftified
- List of battles in Croatia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Croatia
- List of battles in Afghanistan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Afghanistan
- List of battles in medieval India Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in medieval India
- List of conflicts in Egypt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Egypt. NLeeuw (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and England. NLeeuw (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Nederlandse Leeuw, I see no issues with the article, but it should have been merged not deleted. Am i getting this right. I split them because the parent article was very large, yet that lists don't have to be sourced. I would like to merge the content to List of battles by geographic location. I have no idea why my creations are getting reduced; I am current not happy with it. ToadetteEdit! 23:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, why don't you also nominate List of battles by geographic location too? ToadetteEdit! 23:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you're not happy about the fact that I am successively nominating articles for deletion that you just so happen to have created. I rarely look at who created it, only at what the contents are, and how valuable they might be. I've got nothing against you or your work in particular. That said, these split-offs are a cut & paste job that takes less than 5 minutes of effort each. Recycling existing content is a lot easier than writing brand new articles with proper sourcing.
- The reason why I am nominating the lists is in this manner is that I am following a step-by-step approach, building broad consensus based on easy precedents before going on to complex cases. Since actively participating in CfD and AfD from 2023, I learnt that that is the most realistic strategy to solving issues, and avoid WP:TRAINWRECKs. The second reason is that List of battles by geographic location had already been AfD'd in 2022, closing as Keep but Split: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by geographic location. If I still want to get it deleted anyway, then overturning that consensus is going to be difficult. The split-offs provide a good opportunity to show in smaller cases why creating lists of battles by modern countries' geographical borders is not very useful, and difficult to justify when done almost completely WP:UNSOURCED. It seems to be working, as 4 split-off lists have already been deleted, and a consensus has been building that they should be deleted, especially most recently in the Croatia case.
- The new round I am going for now is Afghanistan, England, Egypt, and medieval India. You didn't create the latter two articles, so this is nothing personal. If all 4 are deleted as proposed, then perhaps I may nominate List of battles by geographic location next. But we'll see what fellow editors have to say first. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, why don't you also nominate List of battles by geographic location too? ToadetteEdit! 23:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Strong keep -- This is a well-populated list, which provides better detail than is available from a category. It might be useful to purge by moving battles of the Civil War (War of the three kingdoms into a more specific list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Update: List of battles in Afghanistan, List of battles in medieval India and List of conflicts in Egypt have just been deleted with a lot of participants and almost unanimous support. I wonder why it's so quiet here. NLeeuw (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Military history of England. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Craig_Considine_(academic)
- Craig_Considine_(academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am unconvinced that the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines for academics. The article subject is a teaching professor with limited research output. Their research has not made a significant impact in their scholarly field (they seem to publish introductions for popular presses, published reviews of their other work is critical). They have not recieved a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national/internationl level. They are not an elected member of a highly selective/prestigious society. The subject does not hold a distinguished professor position or appointment at a major institution, nor have they been named chair or equivalent. The subject has not held a highest-level administrative appointment. The person appears not to have made a signifcant impact outside of academia in their academic capacity, where they are quoted in publications it is usually promotional material for one of their porjects. The subject has not been editor/EiC of a major/well-established academic journal. Other contextual clues indicate that this page exists purely as a promotional platform for the subject. There is very little activity on this page other than IP editors vandalizing the page to introduce promotional content, and then other editors removing or clarifying these edits. The creator of this page has since been banned for their promotional activities. I mean to disrespect to the subject of this article, but I struggle to see how they meet the criteria or need for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your platform and visibility as a junior academic, but I would suggest that this is much better accomplished through a personal website and social media channels. Having a cursory glance at the department the article subject belongs to, there are many far more senior scholars among his colleagues who are not similarly represented on this site. After spending significant time trying to improve this page, I doubt that with the available material it will rise to the level of inclusion. I welcome other editors' feedback and perspectives if I have been too harsh in my judgement. Boredintheevening (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- (correcting typo: line read "I mean no disrespect", not "I mean to disrespect") Boredintheevening (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Christianity, Islam, Ireland, England, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep but trim. A lecturer position at a US university is unpromising for WP:PROF notability, and his Google Scholar profile has only one publication with significant citations [24], so that leaves WP:AUTHOR as the only plausible remaining possibility. The article (in the version I checked) lists reviews in the Wall Street Journal and an academic journal, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, for his book People of the Book (references 11 and 12) and in Anthropology Today for his film Journey into America (reference 23). It lists a few other reviews but I am not as convinced of their reliability. My searches turned up only one more, a review in Diaspora Studies for his book Islam, race and pluralism in the Pakistani Diaspora [25]. I think that's borderline, but on the positive side of borderline. On the other hand, the article was horribly puffed up with uninteresting childhood anecdotes, unsourced claims, and the like, even after User:Boredintheevening had trimmed a lot of it. I trimmed more, but there appears to be plenty of unreliably-sourced material remaining in the "Documentary and Books" that should be cut back even more heavily. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for contributing to this discussion and for editing out some of the puff from the article. I want to defer to your experience, but reading WP:AUTHOR - the subject certainly doesn't meet bullet points 1, 2 and 4. For bullet point 3, I acknowledge there are a handful of reviews (fewer when amateur sources and promotional material is excluded) but it seems like not a huge amount to hang the existence of the article on. I'm trying to resist being overly zealous, but the whole thing strikes me as a subject that's been very committed to self promotion (especially re:COI edits on the article) and hasn't really received much recognition or attention from professional bodies and peers. Boredintheevening (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm kinda in the same boat as the nominator. In that, while I'm less familiar with WP:NACADEMIC, it doesn't seem to me that the related criteria are met. While the existence of reviews in the Wall Street Journal and Middle East Monitor are possibly contributory, I'm not sure (on their own) they reach the thresholds expected by criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Personally I cannot advocate for a keep. And am left on the fence. (I would note that the bulk of the promotion added to previous versions of this article didn't appear to come from the article's creator. But from an apparent COI/SPA account which added the bulk of the largely uncited puff in Aug 2021.)
- Keep. Satisfies criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC as "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." (See The Independent, New Indian Express, IBTimes, and Gulf News.) I think it could also plausibly justify WP:GNG with the WP:SIGCOV in the Houston Chronicle, Needham Times, and the discussion of his broader work in the WSJ review. Meanwhile, People of the Book would qualify as a notable WP:NBOOK on the basis of its reviews in two reliable source outlets. (Middle East Monitor is not such an outlet.) That said, this article is still overloaded with primary sources, unreliable sources, affiliated sources and needs substantial work to improve it -- but deletion is not cleanup. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- P.S. I want to thank @Boredintheevening for your work improving the article in the face of a wave of disruptive COI edits. The article was very problematic before you turned your attention to it, and while it still needs work it's in much better shape. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as the coverage in reliable sources identified in this discussion shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Progress Chapter Two: The March Of Progress
- Progress Chapter Two: The March Of Progress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reason why this small show would be independently notable from the parent company. WP:BEFORE didn't show this event was particularly notable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, thank you for the sincere feedback. However, I believe that a proper categorization and documentation of Progress Wrestling's "Chapter" flagship events should exist. Now I understand that the early chapters might indeed be less notable than the more recent ones but I believe they should be part of the project which has to benefit from clear continuity. The presence of only some of the chapters on the mainspace would disrupt it as this continuity should be sanctioned as a book with pages. Let me know what you think. Regards! JeyReydar97 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- We don't have articles on subjects that aren't notable simply because later similar articles might be notable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Almost all of these events are also featured on WWE Network's broadcast system as VOD shoes as Progress has held business relationships with WWE. They're pretty popular on that streaming service. JeyReydar97 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- We don't have articles on subjects that aren't notable simply because later similar articles might be notable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: No coverage in RS, nothing found now. Was a decade ago, likely no further coverage. I don't see any sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- It has video coverage on Progress' Youtube channel. I also found written coverages from two trustworthy sites. One of them is 411Mania. They should be more than enough as references. JeyReydar97 (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Perhaps @JeyReydar97: could combine a couple of these early events into a larger article? Mixed martial arts does something similar for articles such as 2020 in Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki. JTtheOG (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment maybe, a list like List of Evolve Wrestling events is more usefull. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- @HHH Pedrigree: Thank you; I wasn't sure wether they had done it for wrestling events too. JTtheOG (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Paul Chantler
- Paul Chantler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
These sources cover the subject only in relation to his death, nothing more, as per my WP:BEFORE. Therefore, the article fails WP:BLP1E, which states, "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
Breakdown of cited sources:
- 1: https://podcastingtoday.co.uk/one-of-the-founders-of-podcast-radio-paul-chantler-has-died/ (Single Event fails WP:BLP1E)
- 2: https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1883531/BBC-radio-executive-Paul-Chantler-dead (Single Event fails WP:BLP1E)
- 3: https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/17547788.bbc-wiltshire-celebrates-30th-birthday-three-decades-first-broadcast-1989/ (Interview type article, no coverage of the subject)
- 3: https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/tributes-paid-to-radio-exec-and-friend-of-premier-paul-chantler (Again single event tributes Fails WP:BLP1E)
- 4: https://radiotoday.co.uk/2024/03/friends-and-colleagues-pay-tribute-to-radio-executive-and-entrepreneur-paul-chantler/ (Fails WP:BLP1E)
- 5: https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/tributes-paid-after-death-of-influential-uk-radio-executive-304320/ (Again a single event fails WP:BLP1E). GrabUp - Talk 12:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. GrabUp - Talk 12:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I may be missing something, but these obit articles have been published as a result of his death - but it is *not* the event of his death that is the reason why the papers find this person notable enough to publish the article. For example one source states "He was one of radio’s most respected and popular characters". Evidently the coverage is not in the context of a single event. I do not see how WP:BLP1E applies. ResonantDistortion 16:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @ResonantDistortion, WP:BLP1E simply mentions “Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.” These sources are published in context of a single event which is his death! It is simple as that. You said “but it is *not* the event of his death that is the reason why the papers find this person notable enough to publish the article.” If you really think he is notable then cite some reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject. But these sources are just in the context of his death. GrabUp - Talk 16:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Grabup - no - it really is not that simple. You appear to be arguing a blanket statement that obituaries do not count towards notability. If I was to die tomorrow of a fairly common disease, I can assure you I would not get an editorial obituary in any publication. None of the cited obit coverage is published because the actual event of the subjects death is particularly newsworthy, but because of the accomplishments of the subject during the rather more sustained period of their life. There is an interesting discussion here which I suggest you review, [26], which includes a quote by the author of BLP1E, @Jclemens, that "but in no way, shape, or form is an obituary one event". For the record, I have no opinion on the notability of the subject nor the reliability of the sources - I am rather challenging the blanket assumption that (editorial) obituaries do not count towards notability. ResonantDistortion 02:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- All of the sources mentioned above, except one, are citing RadioToday’s report; they are not reporting independently. Additionally, the sources are filled with statements from connected individuals, tributes, and similar content. Do these types of obituaries count towards notability? The first source appears unreliable to me, as it lacks editorial details. Other sources are just repeating what others are saying. GrabUp - Talk 03:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Grabup - no - it really is not that simple. You appear to be arguing a blanket statement that obituaries do not count towards notability. If I was to die tomorrow of a fairly common disease, I can assure you I would not get an editorial obituary in any publication. None of the cited obit coverage is published because the actual event of the subjects death is particularly newsworthy, but because of the accomplishments of the subject during the rather more sustained period of their life. There is an interesting discussion here which I suggest you review, [26], which includes a quote by the author of BLP1E, @Jclemens, that "but in no way, shape, or form is an obituary one event". For the record, I have no opinion on the notability of the subject nor the reliability of the sources - I am rather challenging the blanket assumption that (editorial) obituaries do not count towards notability. ResonantDistortion 02:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @ResonantDistortion, WP:BLP1E simply mentions “Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.” These sources are published in context of a single event which is his death! It is simple as that. You said “but it is *not* the event of his death that is the reason why the papers find this person notable enough to publish the article.” If you really think he is notable then cite some reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject. But these sources are just in the context of his death. GrabUp - Talk 16:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
*Delete I agree with User:Grabup - the articles mainly say what a wonderful guy he was, but do not give the kind of information that would support notability. I noticed that some of the articles mentioned that he had co-authored a book (but none gave a title). I cannot find any publication by him nor his name in the biggest name authority file. Lamona (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I checked per the comment by Lamona, Chantler does appear to indeed be the author of several books; there has been some coverage. Including: Local Radio Journalism (1997; [27]); Essential Media Law (2022; [28]); Basic Radio Journalism (2003; [29]); Keep It Legal (2018, [30]); and JournoLists (2020; [31]). ResonantDistortion 19:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Resonant! I looked again (with the correct spelling of his name, oops!) and he does indeed have a number of published books, some of which are widely found in libraries, which is a kind of acknowledgment of importance. This puts him at or at least close to NAUTH, which makes this a keep. The books need to be added to the article. Also, for more sources ABOUT him, he does show up in G-Books, although I haven't had the time to dig through that. There could be more about him professionally. Lamona (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I have added a bibliography section to the article including the above citations with coverage of his works. I also added a further citation to another obit [32] which, while some of the text is indeed sourced to Radio Today, also includes additional editorial evidence of notability stating that "as well as working as a radio executive, Paul authored a number of important industry guides that outlined good practices in the audio world." All told - should be sufficient sourcing now in the article to push over the notability threshold. ResonantDistortion 19:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete: He's written a few books on radio journalism, but I can't find reviews of them. Career seems rather routine otherwise. The obituaries are fine, but I don't see notability. A senior programming director isn't terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are some reviews, and news coverage, of Chantlers books that are cited in the article, not a huge amount but certainly multiple - even if one of them is behind a paywall. As indicated above - there are further secondary sources stating significance of the works. ResonantDistortion 22:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- User:Oaktree b I had the same reservations but as you can see above there are reviews of his books in some radio-related journals. I mainly changed my mind when I checked on WorldCat and his book "Essential radio journalism" is held in 1,532 libraries. That is the highest number of holdings (that I can find) for books with the subject heading "Radio journalism". This tells me that he has written the book on the topic. Lamona (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep The sources/the reviews above help prove notability, I've updated my !vote Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep: These reviews of his books are somewhat meeting notability. GrabUp - Talk 05:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Weakly. The emerging consensus appears correct. Passes on being a notable author, albeit in a limited domain. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Citybuzz
- Citybuzz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussions of similar recent deletions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 1; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 7 --woodensuperman 08:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nomination this fails WP:GNG as there is no significant non-WP:ROTM coverage in WP:RS. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I've added several sources and notability is now established per WP:GNG. ROTM is an essay, is subjective, and is trumped by GNG, a guideline. Route is not comparable to articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 7 as this one has sufficient sourcing available online. Garuda3 (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Though perhaps, this article ought to be moved to Brighton & Hove bus routes 37 and 37B as I couldn't find any coverage on "City Buzz" or "Citybuzz" which may be what prompted this AfD. Garuda3 (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree with your claim that WP:GNG has now been met for this routine bus route. The sources you've added are from local news sites and hardly meet WP:SIGCOV. --woodensuperman 15:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)- Delete - The sources in question added above just confirm that the route exists, that it will continue to exist, or that it will change the timetable on which it exists. This verifies that the route exists, but it doesn't contribute notability as the significance of the route is never discussed. BrigadierG (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sources don't need to discuss the "significance" of something. That's subjective. They just need to discuss it, per WP:GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- There needs to be secondary commentary. The above are all dependent sources that are basically just reprints of the local travel authority saying that they're doing a thing. And secondly, the coverage is WP:ROUTINE which states "news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article". BrigadierG (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- ROUTINE refers to events. This article is about a bus route, not an event, so that policy isn't relevant here. I disagree with the need for commentary - that may be appropriate for an artistic work like a film or book but doesn't feel applicable to something practical, in this case a bus route but also buildings, railway stations etc. Garuda3 (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, in this case the event is the funding of this bus route, or the changing timetable of this bus route, or so on. Generally though, WP:MILL. BrigadierG (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- ROUTINE refers to events. This article is about a bus route, not an event, so that policy isn't relevant here. I disagree with the need for commentary - that may be appropriate for an artistic work like a film or book but doesn't feel applicable to something practical, in this case a bus route but also buildings, railway stations etc. Garuda3 (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- There needs to be secondary commentary. The above are all dependent sources that are basically just reprints of the local travel authority saying that they're doing a thing. And secondly, the coverage is WP:ROUTINE which states "news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article". BrigadierG (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sources don't need to discuss the "significance" of something. That's subjective. They just need to discuss it, per WP:GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Najma Akhtar
- Najma Akhtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Dowrylauds (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: No coverage found for a musician, this appears to be a different person [33]. The sourcing used in the article now isn't enough to meet notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in this reliable AllMusic staff written bio here it states that her second album reached No. 4 on the Billboard World Music chart and that another of her albums sold 50,000 copies in Japan. Some album reviews here, and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Recommend keeping. Career cut short but a fine actor.
Neil Fitzwiliam
- Neil Fitzwiliam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant coverage and not enough major roles. SL93 (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Television, and England. SL93 (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: An article that doesnt meet WP:NACTOR. No major roles too and unverified sources. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Literature of England
- Literature of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is nearly entirely covered by the article British literature. Quoting from the lead of that article, "Anglo-Saxon (Old English) literature is included, [in this article] and there is some discussion of Latin and Anglo-Norman literature". The parts not talked about there are under the other articles listed in the main topic hatnotes of each of the proposed article's sections. The only one not mentioned here in British lit is Hebrew literature from England, which as well has its own separate article. Your average reader, when typing "literature of England", is likely looking for the literature of England (covered in the British lit article) that is in English. Based off this, I propose to blank and redirect and merge this article into the aforementioned British literature article. This is done with many other literature country articles, seen in literature of France, which redirects to French literature, and literature of Germany, Spain, etc. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, United Kingdom, and England. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Unsure - briefly my problem with almost all pages of the "literature of x place" is that the subject is impossibly broad and therefore inclusion/exclusion decisions are at the whim of editors. That said there clearly are academics writing about it such as 1 - which itself has a more interesting lede para than the WP page - so by the WP:GNG it appears to have the level of independent scholarly RS for inclusion. I'd like to hear other thoughts to help clarify in my own mind whether (or how) this page could/should be kept. JMWt (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that this is not a deletion (or redirect) proposal for English literature, which entirely covers any content from the article literature of England that may be about literature from England in English. I'm aware plenty of sources exist for English literature in English, as this is why we have the former article, but the proposed article is about literature in England mostly not in English, which, as said above, is covered by either British literature or the other main articles. A possible remedy to this is maybe changing the potential new redirect target of this page from British literature to English literature, although the latter is not exclusive to England itself and is about literature written in English as a whole. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it is you that are confused or me. As far as I'm concerned
- English literature refers to literature in the English language
- Literature of England refers to literature produced in England in any language.
- I do not understand why you keep implying that the Literature of England must necessarily be in the English language nor why we should take your word for that. JMWt (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not trying to imply that, more so that in an article about English literature (meaning any literature written in England) — literature of England — the only content in the article is about literature that is not in English. By saying this I'm not implying that the article should only be about English literature in English, rather that the English literature in English is already fully covered in the articles of English literature and British literature, and as the latter is particular to the British Isles and the former is not as you said, the content from Literature of England (the proposed article) should be either redirected or incorporated into British lit. The British lit article does not have to be about just literature from GB in English, as is already said in the lead of the article. Another alternative would be to make Literature of England a disambig page to show the different articles of various languages of literature from England, although for now I'm staying with my original argument. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it is you that are confused or me. As far as I'm concerned
- Keep in mind that this is not a deletion (or redirect) proposal for English literature, which entirely covers any content from the article literature of England that may be about literature from England in English. I'm aware plenty of sources exist for English literature in English, as this is why we have the former article, but the proposed article is about literature in England mostly not in English, which, as said above, is covered by either British literature or the other main articles. A possible remedy to this is maybe changing the potential new redirect target of this page from British literature to English literature, although the latter is not exclusive to England itself and is about literature written in English as a whole. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge, not delete to either British literature or English literature, as appropriate. My understanding is that "English literature" is the literature of England, irrespective of what language it's written in; I presume the same is true of "British literature". Merger is the correct procedure if there's potentially useful material here, even if the contribution is minimal, or it turns out that everything is already included; in that case the article would still become a redirect to one of the relevant articles, but readers checking the article history would see that any relevant content here was reviewed and included in the target article before this became a redirect. The difference between merger and deletion is sometimes subtle, but still important. P Aculeius (talk 13:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- The original proposal was never to delete the article, as I said in the wording above, it is to blank and redirect the article. There is nothing to merge, and thus blanking and redirecting, (per WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R) is an acceptable means of dealing with sitations such as this, and again per those policies, it is advised that controversial blanks and redirects are discussed on AFD, as I did here, even if the goal is not deletion.
- Also, remember that it is best practice to sign your talk page comments by adding four tildes at the end of a message. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Blanking and redirecting is pretty much deletion—and this is "Articles for deletion", not "Articles for discussion". A merge doesn't necessarily involve moving things to other articles, but it ensures that editors know that the whole contents of an article—or anything useful in it—has been covered at the target article. Whether there's useful content isn't determined by whether it's duplicative of something better elsewhere. As I said, the distinction between merger and deletion is sometimes a subtle one, but important: if you just "blank and redirect" without indicating that the article was merged, editors might reasonably infer that no effort was made to ensure that the topic was fully covered at the target article or other appropriate places. And really no significant effort is required on anybody's part to do a merge in an instance where the contents are fully covered, so what's the objection?
- Also, remember that any editor likely to comment on procedure probably knows how to sign a comment, and doesn't need an explanation of how to do it. It's easy enough to forget to type four tildes when editing one's own comments. P Aculeius (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, I see your point and I mostly agree, though it doesn't really seem right to call it a "merge" when no content is being merged into the new article, and incorporating parts of an existing article into a different one and then redirecting/deleting it is different than simply not incorporating any content and simply blanking and redirecting. We do seem to basically be on the same page though and I'll change the wording for not wanting to argue. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, remember that any editor likely to comment on procedure probably knows how to sign a comment, and doesn't need an explanation of how to do it. It's easy enough to forget to type four tildes when editing one's own comments. P Aculeius (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- There are American literature and Scottish literature articles, not sure why England would be an exception. There is overlap with British literature but the solution could be to move some of the content from there to English literature rather than have a British article primarily about England. Peter James (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as consensus right now is unclear. If this AFD is closed as a Merge, editors can merge the article's contents to more than one article. But we use XFDcloser to close AFDs and it can only handle listing one target article. So, if that was the closure, would it be to British literature? Also remember that we are only talking about how to close this discussion, if this closure was for a Merge, editors undertaking that merge could chose to use all, some or none of the article content in a merger. It's up to whomever editor volunteers to handle a merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
::There seems to be consensus to merge the article into the mentioned British literature article, although in practice I don't see what would actually need to be moved since the article Literature of England is only really about literature from England not in the English language — it consists solely of summaries of the articles Anglo-Latin literature, Anglo-Norman literature, and Early English Jewish literature. Either way, yes, the merge would be to British literature, and as you said, the actual content can be moved to any article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Retracting for now, see below comment. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Well I don't agree with that (and to make it clearer I'm now !voting !keep) and at least one other !voter doesn't so I don't think as the nom you should be instructing the closer as to what is or isn't consensus. The fact that the page is unfinished is not a reason to merge or redirect. To reiterate what I said previously, the topic of this page is not the same as for British literature. JMWt (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- It might, however, be the same as "English Literature", if we include all literature written in England or by English writers, irrespective of the language they wrote in. That's my understanding of the term, since it certainly includes Old English and Middle English writing, and at least in the academic sense does not include English-language literature written elsewhere in the world, or at least not all English-language literature, American Literature being considered a distinct and mostly non-overlapping topic. I note, however, that our article on English Literature expressly states otherwise—there seems to be a debate on the talk page about its scope, but that doesn't concern the issue of non-English literature of England. Actually I'm a little confused about why there aren't more discussions there, seeing as I don't see any archived talk pages...
- You're correct in that an article shouldn't be deleted or merged because it's incomplete. The fact that the topic hasn't been significantly changed or expanded since 2016, and remains a brief four paragraphs long, doesn't prove that it has no potential for expansion. However, it does mean that if the subject is or could conveniently be covered as fully as it is here, as part of "English Literature" or another, more comprehensive article, then there is little need for this article to duplicate that coverage, unless and until the topic becomes unwieldy as part of another article, at which time it could be split off and recreated under this or another appropriate title.
- The argument for merger isn't an argument that this article has no value or that its subject is invalid: it's that the best way to treat the topic is as part of a broader or more comprehensive treatment that already exists, and the merger process is designed to ensure that nothing useful is lost. The merging editor or editors would be obliged to ensure that the usable contents here are fully covered in other articles before this title becomes a redirect to one of them, and that if necessary hatnotes direct readers from one target to another. P Aculeius (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Well I don't agree with that (and to make it clearer I'm now !voting !keep) and at least one other !voter doesn't so I don't think as the nom you should be instructing the closer as to what is or isn't consensus. The fact that the page is unfinished is not a reason to merge or redirect. To reiterate what I said previously, the topic of this page is not the same as for British literature. JMWt (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus on what should happen or even on a Merge target article if this is closed as Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870)
- W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Too much cruft, must be deleted as per convention to remove the australian fanfict articles Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, History, Cricket, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:
- W. G. Grace in the 1871 English cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- W. G. Grace's cricket career (1872 to 1873) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- W. G. Grace with the English cricket team in Australia in 1873–74 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- W. G. Grace's cricket career (1874 to 1875) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- W. G. Grace's cricket career (1876 to 1877) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- W. G. Grace's cricket career (1879 to 1882) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- W. G. Grace's cricket career (1883 to 1886) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- W. G. Grace's cricket career (1887 to 1891) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- W. G. Grace with the English cricket team in Australia in 1891–92 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- W. G. Grace's cricket career (1892 to 1894) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- W. G. Grace in the 1895 English cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- W. G. Grace's cricket career (1896 to 1899) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- W. G. Grace's cricket career (1900 to 1908) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also pinging @JoelleJay @Trainsandotherthings @Serial Number 51429 as I have seen them in support for such article removals Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:APPNOTE says "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." James500 (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Naughty, WP:CANVASSing shouldn't be carried out! AA (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, this is clear WP:CANVASSing of people they expect to vote with them. This canvassing should be considered by the closer of this AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- @AA @James500 like I replied to Joseph2302 on my talk - I have pinged those who also voiced against such votes. The sole purpose of me pinging them was to invite more people into the discussion. I dont cherry pick people of one stance and bring them here. Afaik; thats allowed by the first para in WP:CANVASS. Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ill take that my wording says otherwise - my intentions dont Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- If anyone is lurking around this now, Id suggest also checking out this. Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ill take that my wording says otherwise - my intentions dont Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- @AA @James500 like I replied to Joseph2302 on my talk - I have pinged those who also voiced against such votes. The sole purpose of me pinging them was to invite more people into the discussion. I dont cherry pick people of one stance and bring them here. Afaik; thats allowed by the first para in WP:CANVASS. Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, this is clear WP:CANVASSing of people they expect to vote with them. This canvassing should be considered by the closer of this AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Naughty, WP:CANVASSing shouldn't be carried out! AA (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:APPNOTE says "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." James500 (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment What are you referring to by "australian fanfict articles"? -1ctinus📝🗨 01:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, discussion to merge completed (please see said discussion)
- Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1956 and Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1953 already merged, deleted earlier. However this set of wg grace articles have hardly one ga, so many stubs and other full of stuff not required. They arent notable enough for wikipedia.
- Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- If the two pages was merged they should not have been deleted. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you copy some text from another Wikipedia page it should be clear in the edit summary and/or the talk page where the text came from. Wikipedia is not public domain. Christian75 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Right. I havent done that mate, just nominated these pages Pharaoh496 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- If the two pages was merged they should not have been deleted. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you copy some text from another Wikipedia page it should be clear in the edit summary and/or the talk page where the text came from. Wikipedia is not public domain. Christian75 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Noting that I was pinged to this discussion, and that I'm not a fan of these articles, I believe we should delete all as fundamental violations of WP:NOT as cricket statistics turned into articles due to one person's consumption by what I like to call the cricket insanity. They are also clearly non-notable as the sources cover Grace's entire career, not simply his performance in any given event. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Probably merge the shorter articles, with less referencing, to larger articles covering longer periods of time. These articles do not consist entirely of statistics, though it may be appropriate to cut some material from them. A chronological split of our W G Grace article will satisfy GNG. See, for example, the coverage of the 1880s in Bax's chapter "The Glorious Eighties" [34]; the chapter on Grace in Portraits of the Eighties: [35]; Midwinter's chapters 7 and 8 on 1879 to 1891: [36]; and Darwin's chapter 6 on 1880 to 1891: [37]. So you could certainly write an article on W. G. Grace in the 1880s or the period 1879 to 1891. The question is not whether the main biography article should be split, but how. W G Grace is the subject of a large number of entire books, since he is probably considered the greatest cricketer of all time, so his biography is not realistically going to fit in a single article. James500 (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well other cricketers with longer careers do also have same articles. One new thing that has been inspired from football articles is a seperate career page - Career of Lionel Messi. Since Virat Kohli's page was long, I made this article Career of Virat Kohli. Maybe something similar? Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete/merge all Is this a mockery of some sort? Sure you can split some details from the main article, but why the hell would you make more than a dozen subarticles, each with just a few paragraphs? WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTSTATS come to mind here, we don't need prose sections for every season with the stats. Reywas92Talk 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I have never looked at these articles before, but would assume they would all be mostly more than a few sentences! The W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season article can be selectively merged. AA (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge – The player is very notable in Cricket, but it is possible to summarize the information in the main article, or recreate it in a less number of forks. Svartner (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Just a reminder, you can't argue for a Merge or a Redirect without providing a specific list of what the target article is for each article being discussed. The discussion closer carries out the consensus, they can't make these decisions up on their own. It's the discussants' role to provide a full resolution to an AFD nomination, not just an outcome. Otherwise, the closer might have to dismiss these kinds of opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I mean merging these various articles into something more direct, like "W. G. Grace's cricket career". I understand that it is possible to summarize the main content to avoid this number of forks. Svartner (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Liz, I am not aware of any policy, guideline or consensus that says that. I do not think that is how we normally deal with mass proposals. The number of articles nominated, and the number of book chapters that would have to be examined, would make it difficult to compile a complete list of merger targets in the 7 days of an AfD. I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that articles should be merged in accordance with the scope of the chronological chapters in those books, and then leave the final determination to the WP:PROPMERGE process, which does not have a 7 day deadline. For the avoidance of doubt, I have proposed an intial merge of the relevant three articles to W. G. Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 based on the scope of the book chapters I mentioned. To insist that I provide, within 7 days, a list of each and every other target based on the other chronological chapters in those books (and their chapters are chronological) is certainly obstructive, and might confront me with a WP:FAITACCOMPLIS. I see no reason why a closing admin cannot look at the chronological scope of the chapters of those books. James500 (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why are books even in question? Material / content from books do not have to be entirely pasted on here - WikiPedia isnt an alternative for any book. It should contain all relevant information - there is no point making a page of any period of life for any person. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- James500, I'm just talking about the practical aspects of closing an AFD discussion. We use XFDCloser and if a closer closes a discussion as Merge, there must be an exiting target article included. It's part of the closure. And a closer is not supposed to be coming up with original solutions like deciding how articles should be divided up, they are supposed to determine consensus, that's all. If a closer did as you advise, they would be accused of making a "supervote" and probably brought to WP:AN or Deletion review where they would experience a deserved condemnation and mocking. I know because I was accused of making a supervote when I first started closing AFD discussions. No fun at all. So, I'll pass on following your advice. At this point, I've closed thousands of AFD discussions and I'm not going to invent some new solution for this one. But I feel involved now so I'll refrain from closing this discussion. I have a feeling that this discussion will close as "No consensus" unless there is agreement on a resolution that can be easily implemented. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why are books even in question? Material / content from books do not have to be entirely pasted on here - WikiPedia isnt an alternative for any book. It should contain all relevant information - there is no point making a page of any period of life for any person. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Liz, I am not aware of any policy, guideline or consensus that says that. I do not think that is how we normally deal with mass proposals. The number of articles nominated, and the number of book chapters that would have to be examined, would make it difficult to compile a complete list of merger targets in the 7 days of an AfD. I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that articles should be merged in accordance with the scope of the chronological chapters in those books, and then leave the final determination to the WP:PROPMERGE process, which does not have a 7 day deadline. For the avoidance of doubt, I have proposed an intial merge of the relevant three articles to W. G. Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 based on the scope of the book chapters I mentioned. To insist that I provide, within 7 days, a list of each and every other target based on the other chronological chapters in those books (and their chapters are chronological) is certainly obstructive, and might confront me with a WP:FAITACCOMPLIS. I see no reason why a closing admin cannot look at the chronological scope of the chapters of those books. James500 (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Like I mentioned - a seperate article called Career of W.G. Grace, which is like a few prexisting articles. That covers all Pharaoh496 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- I mean merging these various articles into something more direct, like "W. G. Grace's cricket career". I understand that it is possible to summarize the main content to avoid this number of forks. Svartner (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Noting that I was pinged here after having participated in several other cricket career salami-slice article discussions (many non-AfDs). FWIW, I definitely would have !voted in this even without being pinged since I watch the sportspeople delsort. Anyway, I agree with TaOT and AA (!!!) that these articles are not salvageable and should be deleted (with maybe some content from the 1878 one merged?). They are largely prosifications of routine, primary stats reports from CricketArchive with a handful of trivial anecdotes and quotes sprinkled in. If there was anything from these time periods worth including in the main article it would not be from these articles and therefore merging is not appropriate.
As an example, of the 1871 sources: 34/58 sources are stats, corresponding to 1480/2348 words. Of the remainder, 777 are to presumably secondary independent sources, with 640 words outside the lead. Out of those 640, 411 are repeated verbatim (or nearly) in the main page. That leaves the total amount of content that could be merged at 229 words:
The bolded "finest" innings being referred to is from a "Married v. Single" first-class match, which I've gone ahead and merged into the main article (with author attribution). The rest of the material is trivial or would be redundant. Considering the 1871 page is one of the few containing any unique non-trivial, non-primary content, I think it is reasonable to consider the rest of the articles unsalvageable forks that should be deleted rather than merged. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Grace turned 23 in July 1871
Grace in 1871 was principally involved with four teams: the Gentlemen, Gloucestershire County Cricket Club, Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and the United South of England Eleven (USEE).
1871 was a wet summer and, even when the rain relented, there was a persistent chilly wind.[8] Grace, however, had the skill and resilience to cope with adverse conditions and some of his best batting performances were achieved on wet wickets.
This innings was played on a "sticky wicket" after rain and many people considered it the finest of Grace's career, though Grace himself disagreed.
Grace began the innings cautiously and took fifteen minutes to score his first run but then, records Rae, he "scored at a cracking pace".[9] MCC Secretary Harry Perkins had no doubts and insisted that it was Grace's greatest-ever performance with rain frequently stopping play and making the wicket at times "unplayable".Grace's presence ensured a bumper crowd with over £400 being taken at the gate. This money went a long way towards the £1500 that Nottinghamshire needed to erect the Trent Bridge Pavilion.
Simon Rae remarked that cricket enthusiasts still argue about Grace's "greatest season" and that 1871 features in any such discussion.
He took 79 wickets at 17.02 with a best analysis of 7–67. He claimed five wickets in an innings 5 times and twice had 10 in a match.
- Oh btw, I also finnaly nominated that dusty bunch of the 1948 ashes articles. Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Cruft-based forks of the main biography. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since there's a valid ATD on the table, per Liz's comment, it would be helpful to know what information should be merged and to where.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous relister's concerns remain unanswered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reply to Doczilla. You know perfectly well that I have already said, in express and unambiguous words, on two separate occasions, with this edit and this edit that the three articles W. G. Grace's cricket career (1879 to 1882), W. G. Grace's cricket career (1883 to 1886) and W. G. Grace's cricket career (1887 to 1891) should be merged together to form a single article at W. G. Grace's life from 1879 to 1891. You have been clearly told what to merge and where to merge it to. Please do not pretend that you cannot read what I have said. James500 (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - because Wikipedia isn't a mirror to hold minute by minute biographical details of a person. WP:NOTMIRROR Also I oppose a merge because that would create a massive wall of words that totally overstate the person's actual importance. We are supposed to be editors which implies distilling subjects down to the important points and not trying to write down every last fact we can find about a subject. JMWt (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge W.G. Grace was the outstanding cricketer of his time, but we only should have one biographical article on his career. The existence of multiple articles looks like an attempt to use WP as if it were a book, not an encyclopaedia. Having a book length biography would of course be wholly legitimate, but not within WP.
Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete these pages go into unnecessary excruciating detail over his career. I oppose a merge/redirect because (1) the relevant information needed the main W.G. Grace article, and (2) these titles are highly unlikely search terms. For example, someone looking for information about W. G. Grace's cricket career between 1879 and 1882 is far more likely to search for Grace himself and find the appropriate content on his article, rather than searching for the oddly specific "W. G. Grace's cricket career (1879 to 1882)." Frank Anchor 18:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Others
- Yoruba Arts Festival (via WP:PROD on 6 September 2023)
Northern Ireland
Others
Scotland
Lindsay of Evelix
- Lindsay of Evelix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unsourced except a dead link; cannot find any references to the family as a whole rather than individual members. Rusalkii (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep or Redirect: inadequate BEFORE - the usual sources for baronetcies (cf the many hundreds of other articles on baronetcies) are available if anyone takes the trouble to look. However, it's true that the article is in poor shape and inaccurate in part, by comparison with Cokayne (the standard and authoritative reference on baronetcies). The article can be corrected from that, but frankly, little would be lost if it were redirected to Lindsay baronets#Lindsay baronets, of Evelick (1666) (per WP:ATD - "Lindsay of Evelix" is a plausible search term), where the additional references would be more useful. Ingratis (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep or Merge with Lindsay baronets. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Robert Gordon University – Garthdee campus
- Robert Gordon University – Garthdee campus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This whole page reads like an overly detailed promotional pamphlet for the Robert Gordon University, and the main Robert Gordon University article has most, if not all, of the useful information from this article in its Garthdee campus section UltrasonicMadness (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with Robert Gordon University Charlie (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete It sounds like one very-detailed long-winded advertisement promoting the campus. I wouldn't even suggesting merging it as the main Robert Gordon University article seems to already have all the relevant information about the campus. 2001:8003:6C0A:B100:984F:1071:4595:9DCE (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)— 2001:8003:6C0A:B100:984F:1071:4595:9DCE (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep I created this article as the content was making the university article very long. Concerns about it being promotional can be addressed through editing. However, there is sufficient sourcing to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Having edited down a couple of articles with the same or similar issues, I edited down a couple of sections on this article and they ended up resembling the main Robert Gordon University article - the RGU:Sport section on here is now shorter than the one on the main RGU article. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
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 ITalk to my owner:Online 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Wales
Morgan Williams (footballer, born 2004)
- Morgan Williams (footballer, born 2004) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:SIGCOV, as everything I could find is either South London local press or directly from club websites. Anwegmann (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - 5 appearances as a professional with ongoing career, there is coverage out there such as this and this, does not need deleting. GiantSnowman 14:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep per whats on the article, sources above. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – Per @GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Fails GNG. I couldn't find any sigcov of him. The above sources are a routine match report and a routine transfer story. The "ongoing career" argument should officially go the way of NFOOTBALL. Articles are for things that pass GNG now not at some time possibly in the future. Dougal18 (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Cardiff School of Engineering
- Cardiff School of Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence school is particularly notable outside notability of university DeputyBeagle (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Engineering. DeputyBeagle (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)- Redirect to Cardiff University - Departments are almost never notable. BrigadierG (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Star Hill Ponies
- Star Hill Ponies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 14:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, United Kingdom, and Wales. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I found a newspaper article called "Trotting towards stardom" in the South Wales Evening Post, April 1999, and one called "Titanic tricks for TV puppets" in the Western Daily Press, April 1999. Toughpigs (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, given what was presented here and on the page (thanks Toughpigs) or at the very least Redirect to Bumper Films, if the said sources are really found insufficient. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
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 ITalk to my owner:Online 02:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)