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.
- 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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to the United Kingdom. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- 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
- Venezuela Solidarity Campaign (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:SIRS requires that sources establishing notability need to be "completely independent of the article subject" and reliable. I could only find pro-Venezuelan-government sources about this organization. I find it dubious whether these sources establish notability, therefore I am nominating this for deletion. Janhrach (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United Kingdom, and Venezuela. Janhrach (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment There does seem to be some decent coverage in books. I'll have a more thorough look later. I'm unsure how and on what basis you can characterise particular media sources as "pro-Venezuelan-government". What media sources which are "anti-Venezuelan-government" and are they acceptable to establish notability? AusLondonder (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- As for the Google Books results, it seems most are either citations of VSC, or trivial mentions. That was my first glance on the search results, but I do not deny there may be books that provide substantial coverage.
- By "pro-Venezuelan-government", I meant, for example, Venezuelanalysis and the Liberation News of Party for Socialism and Liberation or other party-affiliated sites. I do not mean that all "pro-Venezuelan-government" do not establish notability – I expressed myself poorly. I doubt that specific sources establish notability because of their partisanness, with SIRS mandating absolute independence from the subject. I am no expert on notability, I could be mistaken. Janhrach (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Steuart 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:BIO without independent sources. User:Namiba 16:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Notability is demonstrated by the author having published books, and by his work being cited by others (see the first AfD). Better sources need to be found, no question. John (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 16:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I can understand why this was submitted for deletion because there were no references on it originally. Unfortunately users over the years have been lazy. I have added some sources, there are also a lot of newspaper articles that mention Steuart Campbell (I have access to Findmypast and Newspapers.com) so I can expand the article with other sources. This for me is a keep. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Out of the 12 citations now in the article, a total of 5 appear to be independent coverage of the subject and his works. Coverage could therefore be better of this science author - but I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt particularly as Psychologist Guy has confirmed further sources which would support WP:BASIC. ResonantDistortion 21:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hirose Financial (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 WP:CORP. I tried to locate references in the UK newspapers/magazines but couldn't find any. Gheus (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- OvalX (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)
Other than routine coverage like [1], [2], there is nothing significant about this forex broker to pass WP:NCORP criteria. Gheus (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- FXOpen (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 WP:NCORP. Forex-related references are not useful per WP:TRADES. Gheus (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Egypt, Cyprus, United Kingdom, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Great Britain women's national under-18 softball team (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)
Subject lacks the needed coverage from secondary sources to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Let'srun (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Softball. Let'srun (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Bhav Singh (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 and WP:BIO. Whole article is made up of profiles. No indication of significance. Awards are non-notable trade awards. scope_creepTalk 11:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and United Kingdom. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This page reads as WP:PROMO and resume. Sources are very poor and do not highlight any significant achievements noteworthy nationally and internationally to satisfy notability about the subject role as investor and businessman. Fails WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Charalambos Xanthos (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)
There doesn't seem to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Games, Cyprus, United Kingdom, and England. toweli (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: This is all I can find [3] and it's hardly enough. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- SI-UK (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 company page fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV, promotional WP:PROMO. TCBT1CSI (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. TCBT1CSI (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Japan, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This reads like WP:ADMASQ, but even if it didn't, there is no WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS as required for WP:NCORP. Instead, we have a lot of WP:TRADES coverage and WP:ORGTRIV that doesn't contribute to notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- AccessPay (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:ORGCRIT. All sources I have located are examples of WP:ORGTRIV. Appears to have been created by a single-purpose account for promo. AusLondonder (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete lacks sufficient evidence of notability, including independent, reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the company--Loewstisch (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- V/Vm Test 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)
Nominated by anon IP as: Non-notable record label, complete lack of sources and very little news coverage. Only two of the artists mentioned in the article mention V/Vm Test Records on their page, one of these artists is V/Vm himself. Violates WP:GNG. User:74.108.22.119. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or merge into V/Vm#V/Vm Test Records. ApexParagon (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Merge into V/Vm § V/Vm Test Records, but selectively – without independent sources, statements like
V/Vm Test Records were notable for their rebellious approach
should be left behind. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- A clear merge candidate. This didn't need to come to AfD. Chubbles (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Amar Abba (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 secondary sources, unacceptable for a BLP. Per WP:PRIMARY: "do not base an entire article on primary sources" - this is particularly important for BLPs. Fails WP:BASIC as lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". AusLondonder (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, and Algeria. AusLondonder (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belarus, Ireland, Russia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Entirely based on primary sources. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alptekin Aydin (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)
A healthcare practitioner who runs a small business with some legal consulting on the side. Doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC nor GNG. Created by a single-purposes account, and the content leans towards pitching for business. Sources are mostly routine listings, youtube videos and website that aren't independent of the subject. Klbrain (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The main notability claim seems to be
known for his work in neuromodulation therapies, including the development of QEEG-guided personalized AI-based neuromodulation therapy (QPAN)
, but I haven't found any evidence that he's known for that at all. This google scholar profile is someone else. Searching for his name and "qpan" gets zero hits on scholar, four hits on google (two of which are his own website). -- asilvering (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC) - Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah this guy is definitely a fraud. Seems like wikipedia was only created to push his popularity and/or boost business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.38.156 (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - I see a lot of unreliable sources like YouTube, his own website, and blogs, but no reliable sources. If he’s notable for fringe theories, I don’t see that either, so there’s no sense in moving or redirecting this page. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Turkish organised crime in Great Britain (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)
At the moment the article does not have enough sources but as an alternative to deletion maybe it should be merged into Gangs in the United Kingdom or Crime in the United Kingdom? Unless anyone likes to add more cites and maybe expand it? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Due to paucity of sources, there is nothing to merge. Bearian (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- PensionBee (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)
Unlikely to meet NCORP; no reliable sources The editing spirit (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep this and this seem like independent, significant and reliable sources and there's even more coverage in the news search example. Article needs improvement. Orange sticker (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- The Thieves' Labyrinth (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)
A novel that I cannot find enough sources for it to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. I think the Historical Novel Society source can be considered reliable, but the "eurocrime" site does not appear to be one, meaning there is only a single potentially reliable source here. I have tried various searches, but have been unable to find any kind of actual reviews or coverage that goes beyond a name-drop in reliable sources of any kind. The closest I found was this article on Kirkus, but the top states that it is a Sponsored Blog post, and so cannot count as a review for the purposes of establishing notability. Neither the author nor book series has an article, so I was unable to identify any potential Redirect or Merge target, and with only one source, it does not pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. As it does have the one source, I figured I would bring it to AFD rather than simply WP:PRODing it, to see if anyone else could find any other potentially reliable sources or reviews for it. Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It's very odd that we have an article on the third book and none of the others. Other books in the series have reviews, ones on Proquest from the Lincolnshire Echo, the Times Literary Supplement, this that I am unsure of the reliability of, this interview by a major publisher. A series article could probably be stitched together from these, instead of covering the individual books, but I don't have strong feelings here. Also according to this source "James McCreet" is actually a pseudonym of Matt Stanley. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Merge into an article about the three book series using the sources identified above. The Kirkus review may be usable as the blog is by an experienced writer "J. Kingston Pierce is both the editor of The Rap Sheet and the senior editor of January Magazine." There was an article about the author James McCreet and articles about the other two books in the series but they were all deleted as promotional under speedy deletion criteria G11. I missed the speedy deletion of the other articles but objected to the deletion of this one and edited out the promotional content. The author article was restored to userspace here, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I see a Merge suggested but no existing target article identified. If the article doesn't exist, it can't be a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- List of entertainment events at the O2 Arena (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:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Weakly stated inclusion criteria does not match title. mikeblas (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 12. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 16:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- List of entertainment events at Liverpool Arena (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:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. mikeblas (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Planet Rugby (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)
Recreated and deleted countless times, was recreated by a indefinitely blocked editor with the edit summary "the day wikipedia admins decide not to be DUMB, this will be allowed as an article." Still lacking secondary sources. No indication of in-depth secondary source coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union, Websites, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete and re-SALT. Can't find any WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources in my own WP:BEFORE, and there's certainly nothing to work with in the article. No valid redirect target either. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only prior AfD for this was almost 19 years ago. Since then, it was correctly deleted several times under WP:G4, and a few more times under speedy criteria that are no longer used. By itself, "previously deleted" is no longer a valid reason to delete the page. We need consensus based on source assessment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Abbey Crunch (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)
It's a biscuit. Cookie for our US readers. References are no use for WP:V, fails WP:GNG, WP:BEFORE reveals nothing useful 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Unless WP:Library convinces upcoming participants otherwise, redirect to McVitie's § Biscuits. First paragraph's a slogan; the rest are mere media mentions. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete lack of notability, as it does not cite significant independent sources that demonstrate the biscuit's enduring cultural or historical significance --Loewstisch (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It is a long defunct biscuit brand. Historically significiant, and unsurprisingly hard to find in-depth coverage. This is still useful uncontroversial content, and is of no commerical benefit to any company. Perhaps a case of WP:IAR. Edwardx (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep WP:NBISCUIT does not appear to exist - however I agree with the above this is no longer a commercial product, and there is sufficient cited sources now in the article to demonstrate a level of cultural impact and give sufficient sourcing to sustain an article, including recipes from secondary sources. ResonantDistortion 09:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- High Commission of Togo, London (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:ORG. 1 of the 2 sources is its own website, the other is the UK foreign ministry. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London per the outcome of literally every other prod and AfD about embassies and high commissions in London that has been closed after redirection was suggested, and a trout for the nominator for wasting community time by continuing to AfD plausible search terms with a very clear target. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Some people suggest other targets like bilateral relations articles. There is no such thing as "speedy redirect". Never heard that in my 17 years on WP. I would have prodded this but one editor complained they need to go to AfD. LibStar (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing you say will discourage me from nominating embassy articles for deletion. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds WP:POINTY. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's hardly a response to my reasons for nominating for deletion. Do you acknowledge there are in fact more than 1 possible target if redirected. Do you acknowledge that "speedy keep" is only used by you and not a community accepted start for a vote? LibStar (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe the biggest time wasters are those who created these embassy articles as stubs and questionable notability. At least one of these editors is now permanently banned. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- We're discussing what should happen with one article out of 6+ million articles on the project. We typically have 70-100 AFD nomination proposals every day. Let's all be CIVIL and not get personal here. We want participation in each AFD in order to come to the clearest understanding of consensus and disputes between editors tends to drive away editors unless they want to join in on the dispute and those are the editors who we don't want here. The focus is the article, not the discussion participants. Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe the biggest time wasters are those who created these embassy articles as stubs and questionable notability. At least one of these editors is now permanently banned. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's hardly a response to my reasons for nominating for deletion. Do you acknowledge there are in fact more than 1 possible target if redirected. Do you acknowledge that "speedy keep" is only used by you and not a community accepted start for a vote? LibStar (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds WP:POINTY. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing you say will discourage me from nominating embassy articles for deletion. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Some people suggest other targets like bilateral relations articles. There is no such thing as "speedy redirect". Never heard that in my 17 years on WP. I would have prodded this but one editor complained they need to go to AfD. LibStar (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Another permastub directory listing for a diplomatic mission. As usual, no content other than what would be found in a database or directory. As usual, no secondary sources. This is not encyclopedic content. My opinion is that redirection is pointless, it simply isn't necessary. AusLondonder (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Socialist Alternative (England, Wales and Scotland) (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 subject demonstrates extremely limited levels of notability in terms of coverage actually about the group in question. Search online doesn't reveal any extensive coverage to justify a distinct article for it. Suggest therefore this article be redirected to International Socialist Alternative. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- For context, previous state of article prior to recent edits was sourced with 19 references comprising:
- - 11 via self-published blogs or websites of which 8 were the website of Socialist Alternative and other ISA sections and the remaining three self-published pieces by other communist groups. This is a fundamental breach of
- WP:SELFPUB and more importantly WP:ABOUTSELF on the grounds that an article must not be primarily based on self-published information.
- - 8 independent sources where the majority of them were dead links or didn't actually make any mention of Socialist Alternative yet were being used as inline citations to imply they were (such as this one about COP26 protests[4]).
- As a result of this the article, when reduced to the only sources that could be judged suitable for inclusion (and even one of those is questionable) there is extremely limited demonstration of meeting notability requirements for a standalone article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'D and at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Alternative (England, Wales & Scotland)) which would have been helpful to have mentioned in the deletion nomination so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- List of landlord Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom (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:LISTN, very limited discussion about importance of MPs being landlords among indepdent RSs, with the whole list just being primary sourced from the UK Parliament. WP:UNDUE. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 01:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 01:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: fails WP:UNDUESecretSpectre (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom + keeping the list up to date will be a lot of work, as MPs and their properties come and go. Wire723 (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, this is already met by the category: :List of Landlord MPs of the United Kingdom DimensionalFusion 🏳️⚧️ (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep:
- Notability: This topic passes WP:LISTN (WP:NLIST). This guideline states "Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".
- There are multiple reliable sources discussing this group, naming many of those included in it, in this parliament and in previous ones (as far back as 2014, at least, up to 2024): Sky, Guardian, FT, BBC, Jacobin, Tribune, Yahoo Finance, Big Issue, Channel 4, New Statesman.
- This alone is sufficient reason to keep, but for completeness I'll address other arguments made above:
- Primary sources: Given that notability is established by the above secondary reliable sources, the use of primary sources alone is not an argument for deletion. The primary sources in this article are used for verifiability, not notability.
- These primary sources are suitable as, per WP:PRIMARY:
- they are "reputably published", by UK Parliament
- there is no interpretation of the sources; they are only used to make "descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" (NB. per WP:CALC, "Routine calculations do not count as original research"..)
- per WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source". This source, UK parliament’s register of members’ interests, is explicitly mentioned by name in coverage from at least the FT, Sky, Guardian.
- These primary sources are suitable as, per WP:PRIMARY:
- Undue weight: As I understand it, this is part of the NPOV policy about the content of an article, not whether an article should exist or not. As above, notability is established by reliable sources. The "background" section of the article attempts to keep due weight between criticism of landlord MPs and the view that these criticisms are too simplistic, but I'd welcome any improvements on this.
- Duplicates a category: WP:NOTDUPE states "Arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided."
- Primary sources: Given that notability is established by the above secondary reliable sources, the use of primary sources alone is not an argument for deletion. The primary sources in this article are used for verifiability, not notability.
- Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- A signifcant portion of RS coverage is just to do with the scandal involving Jas Athwal. I do not consider a few RS articles on some MPs being landlords to sufficently justify a a list on the subject. I mean there were a number of articles around the time of private gentlemen's only (until this year) clubs like the Garrick Club and the MPs who were memebers of them but that does not justify list creation in my opinion. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 19:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Notability: This topic passes WP:LISTN (WP:NLIST). This guideline states "Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep but generalise to an article: the topic of landlord MPs has indeed been raised in the past, but the list at present is a snapshot of the situation as at the most recent declarations of interests. (How often do they have to update? Annual declaration, or as circumstances change?) The links above show earlier figures. A useful article could assemble all those various figures from articles, while including the current list. I have more doubts about the category Category:Landlord members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was added, unsourced, to a couple of items on my watchlist. I don't think it's a useful category, and I don't think it will be maintained. In both the category and the list there is what I see as a problem in including MPs who are renting out their own permanent home while relocating to their constituency or London, ie landlords of a single residential property, almost "amateur" landlords, with those who have a portfolio of properties "professional" landlords. This distinction is made visible in the list, but not in the category. The present list could be made more useful if it included data from past parliaments. The category cannot be justified unless a source (the register of interests) is added to each MP's page, and is then checked every time there is a new register to ensure that those who are no longer landlords are removed: unrealistic. A list can be more clearly identified as a snapshot in time. PamD 19:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've nominated the category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 9#Category:Landlord members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. PamD 19:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @PamD; this is a fair rationale RE: the category and useful feedback on the article. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've nominated the category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 9#Category:Landlord members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. PamD 19:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete As it stands, the article has transient notability, and WP:NOTNEWS. Why? The article appears to have been created soon after this news story broke. Many MPs for hundreds of years have been property landlords, and they can't all have owned perfect properties; but now it's suddenly newsworthy. The article is titled "List of landlord Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom", but that title does not qualify the inclusion criteria by timeframe - however, it lists sitting MPs, so to avoid WP:UNDUE, the article should be expanded to include former MPs who had a property portfolio, and I expect that if it is to be at all comprehensive, it would soon become unwieldy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, yes, historically most MPs would have been country gentlemen, landowners and landlords of vast acreages and dozens of peasant hovels! If this list/article is to survive, it needs much clearer definition of its scope. PamD 12:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and expand for the reasons stated by Jonathan Deamer and by Redrose64 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejakyo (talk • contribs) 18:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete are we going to include every MP for the past hundreds of years? Every peer, MSP, Assembly member? What happens if an MP buys a property, that we aren't aware of, and therefore aren't included even if they are a landlord. I don't think this article will work. DotCoderr (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Peers, MSPs, and MSs are not MPs Bejakyo (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could editors arguing for Delete rebut the Keep arguments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:LISTN. It's also hard to justify having such a list, which seems to have arisen from one news event. Maintaining the list will also be difficult, and I can see it becoming out of date very soon.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:DUPLICATE. Seems to just copy from Category:Landlord members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and not to mention this will have to be updated regularly but given the note for the Labour MP who is the largest landlord, it seems to me to be a little WP:POV to me (as someone very much non-Labour). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- @The C of E I think the duplication goes the other way, with the categorisations being an unsourced duplication of this article. The category is up for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 9#Category:Landlord members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. PamD 21:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- seen as the category has been deleted following PamD's nomination, I believe it's now even more needed to keep this article Bejakyo (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- @The C of E I think the duplication goes the other way, with the categorisations being an unsourced duplication of this article. The category is up for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 9#Category:Landlord members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. PamD 21:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:LISTN. SirMemeGod 13:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and rename/generalise Supporting PamD's proposal, as this is an issue that has frequently received media coverage and commentary, this is likely the best thing to do with the info currently here. Seconding Bejayko above that the now-deleted category being a duplicate is a reason in favour of this. Iostn (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Skye (song) (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 could not find significant coverage of this single in reliable sources. Fenix Funeral Directors is a website for a funeral home, and the source is titled "Top 10 Runrig Songs For a Funeral". This article can be redirected to Runrig discography, where its chart information is recorded. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, United Kingdom, and Scotland. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect. Doing a BEFORE search is annoying here because the band's origin in the Isle of Skye is frequently mentioned, but this song doesn't appear to have been written about. Mach61 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Goodreg3 opposes for the reasons discussed on his talk page and this AfD discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to point out the recently added subsection regarding coverage of high profile controversy around the charting position of "Skye", which would indicate a degree of notability. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The two Music Week articles are primary sources, so they don't establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- What more do you seriously want? I have provided information on what was clearly a significant event at the time. On one hand, you point out "self published sources" as not being enough, and on the other, you are equally unhappy with published magazines. What is it you are exactly looking for? Goodreg3 (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Generally, significant coverage of a song is something like a review, an analysis of its themes or structure, or a discussion of its role in popular culture. I listed some sources that I would consider significant on the talk page for An Ubhal as Àirde (The Highest Apple), which I did find to be a notable single by Runrig. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I tried and failed (at a level approaching WP:BEFORE) to find an independent description of this supposed controversy.Finally was able to load the Music Week (some kind of geoblock I think). I agree the 19 January 1985 article certainly seems like significant coverage. The 26-1-85 issue is just recapping the 19-1 story and saying bad weather was delaying the investigation. Voorts why is this primary? Music Week doesn't mention being part of Gallup. I can't imagine it is/was based on the tone and third-person references in the articles, but maybe you have reasons. Oblivy (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Generally, significant coverage of a song is something like a review, an analysis of its themes or structure, or a discussion of its role in popular culture. I listed some sources that I would consider significant on the talk page for An Ubhal as Àirde (The Highest Apple), which I did find to be a notable single by Runrig. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- What more do you seriously want? I have provided information on what was clearly a significant event at the time. On one hand, you point out "self published sources" as not being enough, and on the other, you are equally unhappy with published magazines. What is it you are exactly looking for? Goodreg3 (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The two Music Week articles are primary sources, so they don't establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, reporting on an evolving investigation makes it a primary source. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for alerting me to that essay. There seems to be a disconnect between a reporter writing as an eyewitness (see "investigative reports" and footnote a of the essay) and a reporter relying on primary sources generated elsewhere to write an article. I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure you're right this article fits the situation described in the essay let alone policy. I'm not seeing a second significant source in the article-for-deletion, so it may not matter. Oblivy (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I was referring more to the breaking news example, as well as the portion above the examples, which discusses how writing about an event immediately after it occurs is based on the writers' interpretation of events and is thus a primary source. See, for example, this quote: ""Characteristically, primary sources are contemporary to the events and people described ..." voorts (talk/contributions) 05:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for alerting me to that essay. There seems to be a disconnect between a reporter writing as an eyewitness (see "investigative reports" and footnote a of the essay) and a reporter relying on primary sources generated elsewhere to write an article. I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure you're right this article fits the situation described in the essay let alone policy. I'm not seeing a second significant source in the article-for-deletion, so it may not matter. Oblivy (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to point out the recently added subsection regarding coverage of high profile controversy around the charting position of "Skye", which would indicate a degree of notability. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Charting at 108th place isn't terribly notable. Outside of the charts listed, I don't see any reviews or analyses of the song. Could perhaps redirect to the album? Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Deadbeat Films (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)
Not a notable film studio, as its IMDb entry clearly shows. Tellingly, none of the cited sources even mention the studio. Additionally, notability is not inherited from films that the studio happened to be involved in. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and United Kingdom. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete : Per nominator's reason. Came across the page and had to make my own find out. The notable movies never claimed in any reliable source that Deadbeat Films was their movie studio production. Maybe reason why it was not even listed on the IMDB platform. So many unreliable source which also fails WP:GNG of the subject article.--Gabriel (……?) 22:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm an intern working for the studio itself. As per my other comment, I apologize about the source misinformation. I'm doing my best to improve it, but I'm still incredibly new to this internship and even Wikipedia editing itself. I request more time for it to get fixed up. We're all very busy, so it will take some time, but it will be improved. If anything, some tips on how to improve it would be fantastic. Thanks! MNLewis21 (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm an intern working for the studio itself. It's just smaller than what we're used to and it's in England. I'm not entirely sure where you live, but I definitely think it's more Indie British than anything Well Known American. I've just been hired on, and I believe part of my job is to freshen up and work on the various Wikipedia pages for the studio, its films, and its employees. Another intern started what I'm working on right now. It's a bunch of busy people on board and just needs its due time to cook in the oven. Thanks! MNLewis21 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. Can you further explain more about your internal team and their works towards Wikipedia they intend to get started on. You mentioned some of your colleagues has started what you were currently working on. Can you as well list those draft. That will help. Also is the current article creator of the “Deadbeat Films” part of your internal team. Things needs to be clearer. Gabriel (……?) 19:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- To be honest I'm not entirely sure, unfortunately. I believe the one who initially wrote and researched the articles relating to the studio and its employees has left the company since they were also an intern, but I can't quite confirm that. I've been keeping in touch with my employer Brook Driver, a creative director and screenwriter for the studio, about the articles' status and the advice I'm receiving (thank you very much, by the way). They're still trying to kickstart getting their online presence more well known and complete. As for drafts within the studio itself I don't have access to that just yet. MNLewis21 (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I was the one that created the initial Wikipedia article for Deadbeat Films. I was an intern under Brook Driver at the time and designed this page. The creation of the page was done for no compensation and was based upon research of my own in an attempt to avoid biases and to follow the terms and rules of Wikipedia. I do acknowledge though that this was the first page I had ever created, so any issues present are all my own. I am willing to assist in any way I can in fixing the page if possible. I do believe that the company does meet the standards of having a Wikipedia page, especially when looking at pages for other previously released independent films. This article from TheGuardian directly talks about their recent film Swede Caroline and namedrops Brook Driver specifically: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/apr/17/swede-caroline-review-marrow-mockumentary-is-gourd-for-a-laugh This article from Little Black Book specifically discusses the merging of Deadbeat Films with Toma Productions (Direct connection to The Devil's Harmony): https://lbbonline.com/news/deadbeat-films-appoints-anthony-toma-as-head-of-production CFORMAN12 (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- The official Swede Caroline poster also does feature the Deadbeat Films logo on it: https://www.swedecaroline.com/synopsis/ CFORMAN12 (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Those sources fail to demonstrate the notability of the studio. The Guardian source is a film review, not a company profile, and doesn't mention "Deadbeat Films" anywhere. As I stated in the AfD nomination, the studio doesn't gain notability from its people or products. Unless I'm mistaken, the LLB source looks like a press release. And the film website is, similarly, not an independent source. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 17:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- The official Swede Caroline poster also does feature the Deadbeat Films logo on it: https://www.swedecaroline.com/synopsis/ CFORMAN12 (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I was the one that created the initial Wikipedia article for Deadbeat Films. I was an intern under Brook Driver at the time and designed this page. The creation of the page was done for no compensation and was based upon research of my own in an attempt to avoid biases and to follow the terms and rules of Wikipedia. I do acknowledge though that this was the first page I had ever created, so any issues present are all my own. I am willing to assist in any way I can in fixing the page if possible. I do believe that the company does meet the standards of having a Wikipedia page, especially when looking at pages for other previously released independent films. This article from TheGuardian directly talks about their recent film Swede Caroline and namedrops Brook Driver specifically: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/apr/17/swede-caroline-review-marrow-mockumentary-is-gourd-for-a-laugh This article from Little Black Book specifically discusses the merging of Deadbeat Films with Toma Productions (Direct connection to The Devil's Harmony): https://lbbonline.com/news/deadbeat-films-appoints-anthony-toma-as-head-of-production CFORMAN12 (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- On the note of communication with Brook himself: I'm in America and he is in England, so the time zones have a large gap in between them. We are doing our best to communicate in a timely manner despite this hurdle. MNLewis21 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- To be honest I'm not entirely sure, unfortunately. I believe the one who initially wrote and researched the articles relating to the studio and its employees has left the company since they were also an intern, but I can't quite confirm that. I've been keeping in touch with my employer Brook Driver, a creative director and screenwriter for the studio, about the articles' status and the advice I'm receiving (thank you very much, by the way). They're still trying to kickstart getting their online presence more well known and complete. As for drafts within the studio itself I don't have access to that just yet. MNLewis21 (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. Can you further explain more about your internal team and their works towards Wikipedia they intend to get started on. You mentioned some of your colleagues has started what you were currently working on. Can you as well list those draft. That will help. Also is the current article creator of the “Deadbeat Films” part of your internal team. Things needs to be clearer. Gabriel (……?) 19:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have one COI editor who I think we can view as an unbolded Keep, Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Coach Trip series 8 (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)
Has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade. No objection if anyone merges it to Coach trip but it does not seem notable enough to deserve its own article Chidgk1 (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: WP:SPLITLIST applies. Every of the 18 series has a page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia:NOTDATABASE An endless list of nothing. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep for technical merrits. Either all CT series should be deleted, or (preferably) all should be merged into a kind of episode list. There's no point in singling this page out. – sgeureka t•c 07:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Steve Tappin (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 appears to be a non-notable individual, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. Most of the sources cited in the article and on the talk page are passing mentions, interviews, primary, routine coverage, or hearsay, none of which provide in-depth coverage. The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, off-wiki evidence suggests potential undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry. GSS 💬 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. GSS 💬 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in the talkpage of this article there are lot of significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 03:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Xegma Do you really research on topics or just go on voting 'delete' at AfDs? Did you check the talk page of this article? There are significant coverage in China Daily and The Telegraph and all are present in the talk page. Even nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. Unless it is a UPE issue, there is no reason to delete. It is a Keep. Hitro talk 21:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- The articles you are referring to seem to be paid promotional pieces, structured as interviews, which often include sections like "bio" and "CV" at the end of the article—something rarely found in genuine editorial news. It's a common feature of sponsored content. Additionally, the Telegraph article lacks an author byline, which raises questions about whether it was even produced by their editorial team. GSS 💬 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The China Daily article, the one I am referring to, was written by Andrew Moody. I hope you are not implying that Andrew Moody, a renowned journalist and recipient of the Friendship Medal (China) from the Chinese government, was just an editor of paid promotional pieces.
- The Telegraph article, which is almost 16 years old, appears to be written by Dominic White and must have been published on the old format of the website of The Telegraph which was significantly different from current one. Please check the other articles of same years, you won't find author bylines.
- Apart from those, I also see WP:SIGCOV in this, a South China Morning Post article.
- I see that this BLP article was created on Wikipedia in 2008 and being nominated for deletion now due to some recent UPE activities. IMO, it's more appropriate to restore the best version of the article rather than delete it entirely. If you have a case that this has been a UPE product from the start then I'll rest my case. Hitro talk 15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- HitroMilanese, I respect your expertise, but I must point out that all the articles you've mentioned are essentially interviews, which do not meet the standards of independent sources required by WP:GNG. For instance, the China Daily article explicitly states in the second paragraph, "Steve Tappin says," while the Telegraph article includes phrases like "But Tappin, whom I meet" and "Talking to him, it almost seems..." Similarly, the South China Morning Post piece follows the same pattern. These sources rely heavily on hearsay and fail to meet the criteria for WP:IS.
- Regarding the absence of a byline in The Telegraph, I managed to find many articles, both older and from the same time period (even 2008), with proper author attribution, such as this. It's unfair to say the byline is missing simply because it could have been published in an older format of the website, where bylines were not prominently displayed.
- Additionally, the article was created by a single-purpose account (SPA) with no contributions outside this topic. Given the subject's history of hiring freelancers to update his article, it is highly likely that the SPA either has a conflict of interest or was hired to create this article. GSS 💬 06:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The articles you are referring to seem to be paid promotional pieces, structured as interviews, which often include sections like "bio" and "CV" at the end of the article—something rarely found in genuine editorial news. It's a common feature of sponsored content. Additionally, the Telegraph article lacks an author byline, which raises questions about whether it was even produced by their editorial team. GSS 💬 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Xegma Do you really research on topics or just go on voting 'delete' at AfDs? Did you check the talk page of this article? There are significant coverage in China Daily and The Telegraph and all are present in the talk page. Even nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. Unless it is a UPE issue, there is no reason to delete. It is a Keep. Hitro talk 21:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment : I am posting on behalf of Steve Tappin, so I assume my vote would not count, but I just wanted to bring to your attention that Mr. Tappin meets the criteria for WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. As WP:AUTHOR, if there are multiple reviews of his work he would qualify. Below are some links to his book reviews
- https://www.managementtoday.co.uk/books-special-steve-tappin-tells-us-secret/article/845739 - book review
- https://timesnewsgroup.com.au/geelongtimes/living/renowned-authors-to-share-secrets-on-personal-development/ - Book review
- https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-85788-513-2 - The Secrets of CEOs - Book Review
- https://kimtasso.com/book-review-the-awareness-code-the-secrets-to-emotional-empowerment-for-incredible-leadership-by-wayne-linton-and-steve-tappin/ - Book Review (Even tough this is a blog, the original article is from February 2022 edition of Professional Marketing magazine, as stated
- https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/m/eduonline/2009-11/23/content_9103252.htm - Book Review, contains quotations, but about half the article is original journalist commentary
- In addition WP:BASIC states that “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;” Tappin has over 40 articles online as you can also see some posted in the tal page. Also the following article is in depth:
- https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/vGunLo5swZ5apoTkVPeZcK/Steve-Tappin--The-author-spills-his-secrets.html - very indepth
- Finally, as per WP:ENT he would qualify because he was the host of BBC TV show CEO GURU for a long time - over two years - and has been on at least 30 episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzsoth (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources presented above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- List of Royal Yacht Squadron members (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:NLIST. Might be WP:A3 eligible. Conyo14 (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete It looks like before it was removed, the list was mostly sourced from this unsourced (random?) list of supposed members of the squadron. cyberdog958Talk 20:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Merge the full content (ie, before it was disruptively removed, eg [5]), to Royal Yacht Squadron. Each individual item on the list should be checked to see if their inclusion is supported by the content of their own biographical articles, but there's no reason to delete this list and no reason to remove the list of names wholesale without checking individual ones. -- asilvering (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also, a random sampling of half a dozen members (those that have actual articles) shows none of them even mention the RYS. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Big Church Festival (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 boldy merged this article over a year ago, but just noticed that my redirect was reverted in October. This festival fails WP:NCONCERT/WP:NCORP (which I think applies because this is a non-profit festival, i.e., an organization that puts on an event once a year). I have been unable to find sustained, in-depth coverage of the festival. As there is still merged content in Christian music festival#Worldwide, I propose restoring the redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Religion, Christianity, and United Kingdom. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep There seems to be be enough coverage to warrant the page to be kept and improved on. cyberdog958Talk 02:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- We should not count Event Industry News toward notability; per WP:TRADES, there's a presumption against using industry trade publications to establish notability. Christian Today and Cross Rhythms are both from 2015, hence why I noted this event lacks sustained coverage. Those are the only sources with SIGCOV I could find; the rest of the coverage I've been able to find are routine announcements that particular bands are performing at the event. In sum, two reviews from 2015 isn't enough to establish notability in my view. Cross Rhythms is also an interview with the founder, which means it lacks independence. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep as per the Christianity Today piece and the Cross Rhythms piece which has a significant coverage prose introduction before the interview part, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Promotional. Irrelevant. with hardly any reliable or independent references--Alon9393 (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Irrelevant is a personal opinion not a notability factor and promotionalism can be edited out, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- This editor frequently argues an article is relevant or irrelevant, I'm not sure what that means. Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Irrelevant is a personal opinion not a notability factor and promotionalism can be edited out, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep: Looks irrelevant and not sure about the notability of the subject.Santoshsah4 (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean by
[l]ooks irrelevant
? If you'renot sure about the notability of the subject
, why do you think this article should be kept? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)- Pinging @Santoshsah4. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Insillaciv (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Martin Shearman (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)
Proposed deletion tag removed on the basis of "several sources" being present. This consists of two primary sources from the British government, an entry in the unreliable Who's Who, the subjects Twitter page and a brief mention of his appointments in a list of British diplomats. Fails WP:BASIC as lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Uganda, and Belgium. AusLondonder (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete 2 of the 3 provided sources are primary. Could not find significant third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Holder of the CVO, a high honour which has generally been considered notable per WP:ANYBIO. They're not handed out in cereal packets. A handful are awarded every year. Confirmation that he was appointed CVO in 2003. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- ANYBIO provides a "likely" indication of notability provided sufficient in-depth secondary sources are available. As made clear, with regards to WP:ANYBIO, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". ANYBIO does not exempt a subject from the sourcing test. AusLondonder (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also taking a look at your own chart, of the last five AfDs, just one had a clear "keep" result. AusLondonder (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Your point is? As far as I'm concerned it's clear WP:COMMONSENSE that anyone considered notable enough by the British Government to receive a high honour (one to two hundred every year in a country of 67 million) should be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. They're not selected at random. They're selected because they're already notable. That's the point of ANYBIO #1, to catch people who are clearly notable but not widely covered in the media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- The government honouring a government official is hardly a compelling indication of notability. If he's "already notable" then sources meeting WP:BASIC would be easily locatable. He's not a historic figure. AusLondonder (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Actually (my mistake in this instance), the government didn't. The Royal Victorian Order is in the gift of the sovereign, not the government. The vast majority of government officials do not receive high honours; only a small minority. So yes, it's still a good indication of notability.
If he's "already notable" then sources meeting WP:BASIC would be easily locatable.
I'm sure you're very well aware that that's not really the case. The media generally has little interest in diplomats. Once again, that's largely the point of ANYBIO #1. It balances out people who are notable in real if not especially sexy jobs against media obsession with pop cultural figures. If clauses like this didn't exist then Wikipedia would become ever more focused on pop culture and even less on being a proper encyclopaedia. It's heading in that direction now, sadly, and nominations like this just speed up the rot.He's not a historic figure
is a meaningless statement, especially given he's still alive. What does that mean? I assume it simply means you don't think he's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)- No, I mean he's not a historic figure for whom it is difficult to locate sources. It is quite common for British diplomats to receive honours. I don't think it gives them all a free pass from WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, only a small minority of diplomats receive high honours (i.e. CBE and above), especially in the modern day. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I decided to have a look at some British ambassadors to see whether this is accurate. Surprise, surprise, it wasn't. Menna Rawlings, ambassador to France, DCMG CVO. Karen Pierce, ambassador to the US, DCMG. Nigel Casey, ambassador to Russia, CMG MVO. Julia Longbottom, ambassador to Japan, CMG. Jill Gallard, ambassador to Germany, CMG CVO. Martin Harris, ambassador to Ukraine, OBE CMG. Alex Ellis, ambassador to Spain, KCMG. Notice a peculiar pattern here? A walled garden of articles, some with zero secondary sources (completely unacceptable for a BLP), of British diplomats awarded honours by their employer. AusLondonder (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, only a small minority of diplomats receive high honours (i.e. CBE and above), especially in the modern day. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, I mean he's not a historic figure for whom it is difficult to locate sources. It is quite common for British diplomats to receive honours. I don't think it gives them all a free pass from WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Actually (my mistake in this instance), the government didn't. The Royal Victorian Order is in the gift of the sovereign, not the government. The vast majority of government officials do not receive high honours; only a small minority. So yes, it's still a good indication of notability.
- The government honouring a government official is hardly a compelling indication of notability. If he's "already notable" then sources meeting WP:BASIC would be easily locatable. He's not a historic figure. AusLondonder (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Your point is? As far as I'm concerned it's clear WP:COMMONSENSE that anyone considered notable enough by the British Government to receive a high honour (one to two hundred every year in a country of 67 million) should be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. They're not selected at random. They're selected because they're already notable. That's the point of ANYBIO #1, to catch people who are clearly notable but not widely covered in the media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also taking a look at your own chart, of the last five AfDs, just one had a clear "keep" result. AusLondonder (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- ANYBIO provides a "likely" indication of notability provided sufficient in-depth secondary sources are available. As made clear, with regards to WP:ANYBIO, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". ANYBIO does not exempt a subject from the sourcing test. AusLondonder (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep. 1) The consensus has been that being posted in several places as ambassador is notable; in his case, three.2) The CVO doesn’t confer automatic notability, but is evidence therefor.3) He was the British ambassador to Belgium, a longtime ally.4) The sources are not all great, but they don’t have to be - significant coverage is all that we require - and AfD is not the place to fix articles. Bearian (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)- "consensus has been that being posted in several places as ambassador is notable; in his case, three" Absolutely not true. You're inventing notability criteria. LibStar (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Bearian: Hi there's absolutely no policy or guideline or indeed consensus stating that ambassadors are inherently notable. There are thousands in the world. A select few are notable based on secondary source coverage. As you say the sources certainly aren't great. Three primary sources, an unreliable source and a Twitter profile? That's a violation of WP:PRIMARY and unacceptable for a BLP. AusLondonder (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Based on the above new information, I’ve decided to delete some parts of my prior comments, and I’m now a weak delete. I was of the idea that holding multiple (three?) posts as a full ambassador was sufficient to pass NPOL, but I guess the consensus wasn’t that clear. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Total absence of GNG coverage. I don't see how CVO is nearly prestigious enough for ANYBIO, and anyway the subject still needs to be demonstrably notable via sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Richard Jones (British diplomat) (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)
Previous AfD closed as no consensus, but should have closed as delete given AfD is not a simple headcount, with strength of argument supposed to account for something. Two editors favoured deleting, and two favoured keeping (including the creator, who cited the unreliable Who's Who as a keep rationale). Source analysis in previous AfD established Jones lacks significant coverage specifically about him in multiple published secondary sources and therefore fails WP:BASIC. The current article has not been improved since last AfD and instead still consists of three sources which do not contribute to notability. Ambassadors are not inherently notable and do not get a free pass from notability requirements. AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I found this which doesn't look too bad but I don't really know how it works for ambassadors. There may be more but I am unsure what exactly counts for this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- There's also this. Still not done searching but there isn't nothing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- This and this are good as well. This is also a bit helpful but not as much. I was able to find this from just Switzerland and I didn't even try to search for the other places. Again, not very experienced with ambassadors, but I think this is GNG now, especially with the the Le Temps source which is the Romandy's newspaper of record. So keep.
- @CFA Thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yup, looks good to me. Thanks for finding those. Keep. C F A 💬 17:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I thank only Switzerland's inexplicably well digitized press. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yup, looks good to me. Thanks for finding those. Keep. C F A 💬 17:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- There's also this. Still not done searching but there isn't nothing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The source above is good, but I couldn't find anything else. Ambassadors have to meet WP:NBASIC like everyone else. I wouldn't be surprised if more coverage exists
but I'm inclined to delete unless some is found.C F A 💬 16:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC) - Keep, the coverage found provides enough coverage Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- These sources are more about EU/Swiss relations than about Jones as an individual. AusLondonder (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)- @OwenX There are three keep votes and no deletes. Is that not enough consensus? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why, has AusLondonder turned into chopped liver while I wasn't looking? Either way, I don't see any reason to hurry. Owen× ☎ 21:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @OwenX There are three keep votes and no deletes. Is that not enough consensus? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Expand and maintain, just expand your trajectory and your relevance increases. Alon9393 (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean by " just expand your trajectory and your relevance increases"? It doesn't make sense is arguing for notability. LibStar (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- LibStar Richard Jones has notoriety, as ambassador of the EU and Great Britain, he only needs expansionism and more reliable sources. Alon9393 (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Needs expansionism? That doesn't make sense. LibStar (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- LibStar Richard Jones has notoriety, as ambassador of the EU and Great Britain, he only needs expansionism and more reliable sources. Alon9393 (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep and improve: I think enough coverage is found.Santoshsah4 (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of ambassadors of the European Union#Switzerland. The sources that have been found do not meet NBASIC (and as has been noted, ambassadors are not inherently notable). They are all reporting on what Jones himself has said at a various press conferences about EU policy toward Switzerland. That is not significant coverage of Jones himself. The sources cited in the article are either unreliable (Who's Who and Gulabin.com [an SPS]) or routine announcements about the ambassador being posted to Switzerland and his retirement. I have been unable to find additional sources that provide significant coverage of this diplomat. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect as suggested. I’m actually leaning to a weak delete, but I’m equally inclined that he could become notable. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- "Could become notable" is WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I'm not convinced by the keep votes here. Coverage is routine, and ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of ambassadors of the European Union#Switzerland per Voorts. I agree that sourced are not sufficient here to demonstrate notability for an article, and ambassadors are not presumed to be notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per Voorts. Repeating/covering what someone says is obviously not coverage of the person, otherwise we'd have pages on every spokesperson ever. JoelleJay (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Others
Categories
Deletion reviews
Miscellaneous
Proposed deletions
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
- Kian Breckin (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)
Bringing this here for discussion since Draft:Kian Breckin and Draft:Kian Breckin (footballer) had been declined on multiple occasions, and the editor who created the mainspace version has some problematic creations. I feel like this needs discussion to see if Breckin is notable. Star Mississippi 20:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Star Mississippi 20:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – Sufficiently referenced to pass in WP:GNG and this version is better than the others as it contains at least one example of WP:SIGCOV and passes under the WP:NSPORT due to the other coverage. EnglishDude98 21:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Akhmed Yakoob (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 or WP:NPOL, candidacy doesn't count towards NPOL, by the way, they have to be elected to the office. For GNG, the sources used are routine coverages of the racism incident, etc. No WP:SIGCOV can be identified. One of the BBC source even does not have a byline, while you might thing it's almighty BBC, but sorry, we can not rely on a news piece that lacks a byline, whether from an international news org or a local one. A WP:BEFORE was done and the nature of the sources found there does not help, they either routine coverages or run of the mill. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to 2024 West Midlands mayoral election as page fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. This page was originally a redirect, and should return to being a redirect. The name is a notable redirect to the events discussed in the mayoral election article, but not as a standalone page. If he'd been elected to office then it would be a different story. This is Paul (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hirose Financial (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 WP:CORP. I tried to locate references in the UK newspapers/magazines but couldn't find any. Gheus (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- OvalX (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)
Other than routine coverage like [6], [7], there is nothing significant about this forex broker to pass WP:NCORP criteria. Gheus (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Steuart 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:BIO without independent sources. User:Namiba 16:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Notability is demonstrated by the author having published books, and by his work being cited by others (see the first AfD). Better sources need to be found, no question. John (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 16:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I can understand why this was submitted for deletion because there were no references on it originally. Unfortunately users over the years have been lazy. I have added some sources, there are also a lot of newspaper articles that mention Steuart Campbell (I have access to Findmypast and Newspapers.com) so I can expand the article with other sources. This for me is a keep. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Out of the 12 citations now in the article, a total of 5 appear to be independent coverage of the subject and his works. Coverage could therefore be better of this science author - but I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt particularly as Psychologist Guy has confirmed further sources which would support WP:BASIC. ResonantDistortion 21:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Evelyn Tubb (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 for BLP sourcing issues since 2010. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and England. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment found a short staff-written bio at AllMusic here. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Katie Clarke (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 for notability since 2018. Not clear whether the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Austria, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- A Fête Worse Than Death (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 was able to find a single review from the Daily Mail on ProQuest and nothing else to pass WP:NBOOK. The Daily Mail is the Daily Mail and is not usable. This looks like a review but I can't tell how long it is, and even if it is that's only one source. Redirect to author Iain Aitch (his article is bad but from the sourcing I found while searching for this, is probably notable)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Travel and tourism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Bhav Singh (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 and WP:BIO. Whole article is made up of profiles. No indication of significance. Awards are non-notable trade awards. scope_creepTalk 11:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and United Kingdom. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This page reads as WP:PROMO and resume. Sources are very poor and do not highlight any significant achievements noteworthy nationally and internationally to satisfy notability about the subject role as investor and businessman. Fails WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ramsey Faragher (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 notability besides a few academic sources, doesn't appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG - *maybe* you can argue that the company is relevant? But he as a person doesn't seem to be Toffeenix (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Technology, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. This is one of those odd instances where Wikidata and the article history include what look like several claims to notability that are completely unmentioned in our present article. He is a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Navigation and the 2023 recipient of their Harold Spencer-Jones Gold Medal for an outstanding contribution to navigation [8]. He is also the 2023 recipient of the Dennis Gabor Medal and Prize [9]. They are all personal honors rather than indirect through his company. That looks arguably like a pass of WP:PROF#C3 and a double pass of #C2, if we agree that those are national-level awards for scholarly contributions and a highest-level honorary membership in a major scholarly society. Are they? He also has what looks like a strong citation record [10] in a field whose citation patterns are unfamiliar to me, arguably enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- EDGE of Existence programme (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 noticed while editing the following article, that the two overlap significantly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDGE_species. I propose housing the EDGE methodology and the programme under one article. Oignonne (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 17. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 09:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Merge EDGE species to EDGE of Existence programme: Not enough material to warrant two articles, but neither fails GNG. Narrower topic should be merged into the broader topic. UtherSRG (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- A. Lorne Weil (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. References are passing mentions, paid for profiles and interviews. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 19:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO. My first thought was, "...and???". He's rich, he has a family, he got an education. He rose up the corporate ladder. Having the right connections can accomplish that much. But what did he actually do? — Maile (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO for lack of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, England, Canada, United States of America, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete $8 million? That's it? State lotto winners are more notable and richer than this literal WP:MILLionaire, and the only drama in his life seems to be being bought out of his position by Ron Perelman, which at this point is just as MILL. Add to that the source to his wealth is a standard disqualified and unsourced 'net worth made up' website. Nate • (chatter) 23:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Felix Goddard (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, no significant coverage, just stats/routine news. GiantSnowman 19:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- It’s got significant coverage from what I can see. Stop pointlessly tagging pages for deletion - becoming quite pathetic now. 2A06:5902:180C:5800:59C9:B142:4513:9C80 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Stop editing from your IP, EnglishDude. GiantSnowman 17:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I see at least one example of WP:SIGCOV in a reliable source (Straits Times - ironically it's from the very beginning of his career) and that's enough combined with other coverage for a WP:NSPORT pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- One source is not enough. GiantSnowman 17:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is for WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Incorrect - it says that "an athlete is likely to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources" (my emphasis). GiantSnowman 18:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article." Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- "at least one" - and that even doing that "does not indicate notability". GiantSnowman 20:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article." Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Incorrect - it says that "an athlete is likely to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources" (my emphasis). GiantSnowman 18:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is for WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- One source is not enough. GiantSnowman 17:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Singapore, Germany, Ireland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Not seeing enough coverage. One article from the Strait Times mentioned above is not enough. Simione001 (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NSPORT is a little looser than WP:GNG. Unlike with GNG, "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Combine the one article with the extensive non-SIGCOV available, it's a pass on the SNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – Sufficiently referenced to pass in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Charalambos Xanthos (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)
There doesn't seem to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Games, Cyprus, United Kingdom, and England. toweli (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: This is all I can find [11] and it's hardly enough. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- SI-UK (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 company page fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV, promotional WP:PROMO. TCBT1CSI (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. TCBT1CSI (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Japan, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This reads like WP:ADMASQ, but even if it didn't, there is no WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS as required for WP:NCORP. Instead, we have a lot of WP:TRADES coverage and WP:ORGTRIV that doesn't contribute to notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Lucas Sant (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)
Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. (I would draftify, but a draft already exists - which can be incubated until the subject is ready for mainspace). Paul W (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draft Send to draft space, possibly notable in the future, but not seeing it at the moment. Govvy (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- A draft already exists, Govvy - hence the AfD here. Paul W (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- This version is better, histmerge this one to draft and SALT until it's in good state. Govvy (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- A draft already exists, Govvy - hence the AfD here. Paul W (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. NB that article creator has a long history of creating articles in mainspace that are already in draft... GiantSnowman 19:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- John Gramlick (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:NBASIC. No significant coverage. C F A 💬 22:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, Football, Austria, Hungary, and England. C F A 💬 22:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Nothing that supports its own article, the relevant information about the subject is the competition created by him. Svartner (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete:not enough coverage to establish notablity for a standalone article. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 08:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)- Redirect to Challenge Cup (Austria-Hungary), @Svartner and Vestrian24Bio: The article for the Challenge Cup seems maybe to be an important part of the history of football for the region, although severely under-sourced. My recommendation would a redirect to the article, as he is mentioned there and it's pretty much already whats on this article. Your thoughts? Regards, Govvy (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with Redirect. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 14:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- He doesn't seem to have any relevance as a search term. Svartner (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect seems fair. AA (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect is fine. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Challenge Cup (Austria-Hungary): per Govvy's rationale. SirMemeGod 22:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- V/Vm Test 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)
Nominated by anon IP as: Non-notable record label, complete lack of sources and very little news coverage. Only two of the artists mentioned in the article mention V/Vm Test Records on their page, one of these artists is V/Vm himself. Violates WP:GNG. User:74.108.22.119. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or merge into V/Vm#V/Vm Test Records. ApexParagon (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Merge into V/Vm § V/Vm Test Records, but selectively – without independent sources, statements like
V/Vm Test Records were notable for their rebellious approach
should be left behind. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- A clear merge candidate. This didn't need to come to AfD. Chubbles (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Matt Kean (musician) (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:BANDMEMBER, notability is solely inherited by being a member of Bring Me the Horizon --- FMSky (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Matt Nicholls (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:BANDMEMBER, notability is solely inherited by being a member of Bring Me the Horizon ---FMSky (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Bring Me the Horizon, and possibly add protection to prevent that redirect from being reverted, as has happened several times already. The edit comments seen on the History page show that some editors insist that he has achievements outside of the band, but that is false. The current article is dependent on trivia about his gear and non-notable personal matters, and the fact that he made the top ten in a magazine's list of best drummers can be mentioned at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The user who's previously deleted the article (without going through this process) cited WP:BANDMEMBER, which says: "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability."
Individual notability through WP:MUSICBIO states that musicians are notable if: · Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
- The content of Nicholls' article directed about him specifically are sourced to Music Radar, Drum!, Alternative Press, Noisecreep, NME and the BBC.
· Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
- Through the band he is apart of contributes to, they have had multiple number-one albums in their home country, as well as eight different UK Top 40 Hits.
· Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
- Through his band that he contributes to, has multiple platinum-selling singles and albums in their home country alone, as well as Gold records in the United States as certified by the RIAA.
· Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
- Alternative Press and Noisecreep reported about his broken hand that he sustained while touring.
· Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)
- Four of the albums he has worked on with his band have been on major labels such as RCA and Sony Music.
· Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.
- Nicholls is in a band with Oli Sykes, Jordan Fish and Lee Malia who are all prominent musicians who display their independent notability, through other collaborations, producing other works and music scoring for films.
· Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
- Nicholls is a prominent drummer in his genre who is well-known and has been featured on MusicRadar's list of as one of the best drummers in rock music, making him a good representation as a drummer in rock music.
· Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Note that this requires the person or band to have been the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name, and is not passed by playing as a session musician on an album whose award citation was not specifically for that person's own contributions.
- He has been nominated for several Grammy's and BRIT awards, winning a BRIT award with his band for best alternative act this year.
· Has won first, second, or third place in a major music competition.
- Nicholls has never been in a music competition, rendering this one of the only guidelines for independent notability he won't meet.
· Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album.
- He has performed on Channel 4's (UK Broadcasting Network) Sunday Brunch, a television show, with his band.[12]
· Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
- His music has been persistently played on BBC Radio One and Kerrang! Radio for well over a decade now.
· Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.
- Nicholls appeared on BBC Breakfast in October 2021, a segment he was apart of in the studio collaborating with the BBC for Children in Need.
Out of all of the independent notability guidelines, there is only ONE he fails to comply to. At the top of the section, it's said that: Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. He follows not only one, but ELEVEN of the twelve listed criteria, so therefore the article should be kept. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- He does have a few specific articles in drumming-oriented publications, but almost every accomplishment listed above was by the band, not him (or any of the other members, for that matter). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, he has achieved a lot with his band. However, let's not pretend that he isn't apart of the band. His achievements lie with the band, and the guidelines apply for not only an ensemble, but musicians in general too. That individual member still shares the same accomplishments as the band. Again, to highlight the first line of the guidelines at the top of the section: "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." Again, on an individual level, Matt Nicholls applies to ELEVEN out of the TWELVE applicable guidelines, not just one of them, regardless on whether they are with his band or not. This is like arguing that if Lars Ulrich isn't a notable drummer because all of his accomplishments are through Metallica and not his own, he just shares his achievements with other members. To add to this, Nicholls also qualifies for the composer's list as he contributes to songwriting: WP:COMPOSER "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." He is credited as a songwriter to two of Bring Me The Horizon's biggest hits such as "Throne" and "Drown". Ulrich has also co-written some of Metallica's biggest hits. Do you see what I'm getting at? This article is a must KEEP. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Shows individual notability per above. Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Joel McGregor (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)
Nothing has really changed since the last AFD - yes, he made a few sub appearances at the end of last season (totalling 217 minutes per Soccerway), but there remains no significant coverage, everything is pretty much match reports and stats sites, fails WP:GNG. No spectacular career that would justify keeping GiantSnowman 07:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 07:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging those at last AFD - @Zoglophie, Anwegmann, and Svartner:. GiantSnowman 07:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: No coverage here to meet the WP:GNG, would also consider a SALT here as well. Let'srun (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Considering that the incubation period in draftspace was not respected. Svartner (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator's rationale and I'd also advocate for WP:SALTING if this continues after this Afd. zoglophie•talk• 12:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete and WP:SALT, not much more to say, other than this kind of behavior is really annoying. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Finn Ashworth (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 young player who fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 07:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 07:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draft Send to draft space, clearly not main space material. Govvy (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Wales. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify obviously and per Govvy Intrisit (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - I am not wholly averse to draftify, but I don't see how that will help in this case. The subject is non notable. They may be notable one day, but is there any reason to believe that will be soon enough that the draft would not expire? If it will be deleted anyway, we might as well let it go now. A WP:REFUND would be available in the future if they became notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Mason Rees (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 young player, fails WP:GNG, now playing in non-league and unlikely to be notable any time soon, if at all. GiantSnowman 07:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 07:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Sometimes they make it back to the league, most times not. On the face of whats on the article, there is little and certainly not notable on account of WP:BASIC, so delete. Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alptekin Aydin (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)
A healthcare practitioner who runs a small business with some legal consulting on the side. Doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC nor GNG. Created by a single-purposes account, and the content leans towards pitching for business. Sources are mostly routine listings, youtube videos and website that aren't independent of the subject. Klbrain (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The main notability claim seems to be
known for his work in neuromodulation therapies, including the development of QEEG-guided personalized AI-based neuromodulation therapy (QPAN)
, but I haven't found any evidence that he's known for that at all. This google scholar profile is someone else. Searching for his name and "qpan" gets zero hits on scholar, four hits on google (two of which are his own website). -- asilvering (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC) - Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah this guy is definitely a fraud. Seems like wikipedia was only created to push his popularity and/or boost business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.38.156 (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - I see a lot of unreliable sources like YouTube, his own website, and blogs, but no reliable sources. If he’s notable for fringe theories, I don’t see that either, so there’s no sense in moving or redirecting this page. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Jack Moore (footballer, born 2003) (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)
PROD removed by article creator, no reason given. No significant coverage, everything is pretty much match reports and stats sites, fails WP:GNG. No spectacular career that would justify keeping. GiantSnowman 20:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Once again this page is not "pretty much match reports and stats sites"!
- Please check the sources and READ the article as well as sources before making false statements about another one of my pages EnglishDude98 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is made up of one more type of source: primary sources. In general that means sources created by himself, his family, his employer or his association - in this case, all news published by his own club are primary. They can be used, but do not provide notability for a subject. Geschichte (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly - where is the significant coverage? The fact that @EnglishDude98: does not understand notability requirements remains concerning. GiantSnowman 06:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is made up of one more type of source: primary sources. In general that means sources created by himself, his family, his employer or his association - in this case, all news published by his own club are primary. They can be used, but do not provide notability for a subject. Geschichte (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The article shouldn't have been Prod'ed in the first place, because there are multiple citations in play, all-be-it mostly primary, makes it not an article you can PROD. There are some secondary sources on there, but many people call them routine coverage. @EnglishDude98: I suggest you read through WP:V and try and find those sources which users today would call WP:SIGCOV. Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Will check later, thanks for the help and advice in this matter @Govvy EnglishDude98 (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why does an article having multiple sources mean you can't PROD it? GiantSnowman 14:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- The difference between complicated and uncomplicated, a page with multiple sources will always be challenged, 90% of admins will reject a prod like that. Prod is for straight forward simple deletions. Govvy (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, it is for an uncontroversial deletion, which is not the same thing at all. GiantSnowman 15:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- The difference between complicated and uncomplicated, a page with multiple sources will always be challenged, 90% of admins will reject a prod like that. Prod is for straight forward simple deletions. Govvy (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing even close to approaching IRS SIGCOV, and there is no point in draftifying something that has no hope of sourcing appearing in the near future. The current page has 15 citations to his club/league (not independent and not secondary), 6 citations to stats pages (not secondary, not SIGCOV), and 4 citations to utterly routine match reports, none of which contain even a sentence on Moore. JoelleJay (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per JoelleJay statement. Footballer with a very common birth name, making it difficult to find significant coverage for this one. I don't see this article as a potential draft. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 14:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draft I am going to say draft with the hope that he could come notable, he is only 20 years old, I don't see why it can't be worked on in draft space. Govvy (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Larry Steinbachek (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)
All reliable standalone coverage on the page is about the subject's death, the only other reliable source is about a song that the subject's group made, while the rest are WP:NOTRS sources like IMDB and music fan sites. Pretty clear failure of WP:NMUSICBIO. Should be redirected to Bronski Beat. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am also nominating the following related page because of similar independent notability issues. All standalone coverage of Bronski is in obituaries, while the only other sources presented are an article about his band, an unreliable fansite, and an interview which is a primary source. No independent notability here either, and should similarly be redirected to Bronski Beat because of the notability issues:
- Steve Bronski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep both received significant independent coverage in a number of major news and music news outlets. The idea that an obituary written about a person is "about his death" rather than a celebration of his life seems a bit over the top. I don't know of any guideline or consensus that a non-paid obituary is not counted for notability. It's not just those two either:
- I could see an argument WP:BANDMEMBER applies here although with a band this influential I'd put my thumb on the scale for Steinbachek for other things like LGBTQ activism and film scoring. Steve Bronski is even more notable than Steinbachek because he wrote Smalltown Boy. Oblivy (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I disagree and I very much believe WP:BANDMEMBER applies. I'll admit that maybe saying that the obituaries are about their deaths rather than celebrations of their lives was unduly harsh, but the pieces objectively only exist because their subjects passed away. I'm not finding virtually anything in reliable sourcing regarding Steinbachek's activism or film score work, and Bronski does not inherit notability from being one of three co-writers on a song that was a top 3 hit in the U.K. and a top 50 hit in the U.S. If you want to find sources that solely focus on the subjects that that meet WP:V and WP:RS and add them to the article, go for it -- I might even walk this back if you can find enough, but for now outside of their passings I just don't think there's enough coverage of either of them for their standalone articles to quite meet WP:NMUSIC. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- The idea that major news-outlet obituaries "only exist because their subjects pass away" is more than a wee bit reductive. Yes, they are occasioned by the death, but they are written because the person was notable. Oblivy (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Just because an obituary was published by a reliable source does not automatically make the subject independently notable by Wikipedia standards -- to prove my point, I will direct you to two deletion discussions about deceased musicians, WP:Articles for deletion/Koopsta Knicca and WP:Articles for deletion/Lil Phat, both from this year (the former actually started by me, not entirely coincidentally). In both cases, despite there being tributes written by sources that pass WP:RS (including here and here, respectively), there was consensus at both discussions that there was not enough coverage of these artists for the purposes of standalone articles outside of their deaths, with the former article being redirected to the notable group he was a member of, and the latter being redirected to a U.S. top 10 hit he appeared on and had a co-writing credit for. Personally, I feel that Steinbachek and Bronski are in the exact same boat, more or less -- just because they were members of an unquestionably notable group whose music charted and went platinum in various nations does not mean they individually pass WP:NMUSICBIO, since notability is not inherited and outside of them dying the sourcing in both articles does not appear to establish it outside of the context of the group. I'm not trying to persuade you to change your vote or anything, but I really don't see enough in either article that couldn't just be included in the Bronski Beat article. JeffSpaceman (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- There is, of course, nothing to prevent a band member from being notable despite not meeting the criteria set forward at WP:BANDMEMBER. I wasn't suggesting an obituary means a person meets WP:N, but at the same time an obituary is certainly an opportunity taken by the press to significantly cover someone's life and there is generally ZERO relationship between the notability of their death and the notability of their life. Oblivy (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Just because an obituary was published by a reliable source does not automatically make the subject independently notable by Wikipedia standards -- to prove my point, I will direct you to two deletion discussions about deceased musicians, WP:Articles for deletion/Koopsta Knicca and WP:Articles for deletion/Lil Phat, both from this year (the former actually started by me, not entirely coincidentally). In both cases, despite there being tributes written by sources that pass WP:RS (including here and here, respectively), there was consensus at both discussions that there was not enough coverage of these artists for the purposes of standalone articles outside of their deaths, with the former article being redirected to the notable group he was a member of, and the latter being redirected to a U.S. top 10 hit he appeared on and had a co-writing credit for. Personally, I feel that Steinbachek and Bronski are in the exact same boat, more or less -- just because they were members of an unquestionably notable group whose music charted and went platinum in various nations does not mean they individually pass WP:NMUSICBIO, since notability is not inherited and outside of them dying the sourcing in both articles does not appear to establish it outside of the context of the group. I'm not trying to persuade you to change your vote or anything, but I really don't see enough in either article that couldn't just be included in the Bronski Beat article. JeffSpaceman (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- The idea that major news-outlet obituaries "only exist because their subjects pass away" is more than a wee bit reductive. Yes, they are occasioned by the death, but they are written because the person was notable. Oblivy (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I disagree and I very much believe WP:BANDMEMBER applies. I'll admit that maybe saying that the obituaries are about their deaths rather than celebrations of their lives was unduly harsh, but the pieces objectively only exist because their subjects passed away. I'm not finding virtually anything in reliable sourcing regarding Steinbachek's activism or film score work, and Bronski does not inherit notability from being one of three co-writers on a song that was a top 3 hit in the U.K. and a top 50 hit in the U.S. If you want to find sources that solely focus on the subjects that that meet WP:V and WP:RS and add them to the article, go for it -- I might even walk this back if you can find enough, but for now outside of their passings I just don't think there's enough coverage of either of them for their standalone articles to quite meet WP:NMUSIC. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Merge both to Bronski Beat. I don't see sufficient justification for standalone articles, but detail on the band members should be included there. --Michig (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect both articles to Bronski Beat. Best solution here, that also retains the information. ResonantDistortion 09:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - not merely a band member, he co-wrote one of the most iconic songs of the 1980s, for which books and episodes of music history have been published. That alone is reason enough, but as shown by simple WP:BEFORE searches, there’s clearly sufficient sources for significant coverage. His music has been called “landmark” by The Independent, an “anthem of gay culture resonates 40 years on … the haunting classic” according to The Guardian, Spin magazine focused on his individuality in their breakout cover story, and the Financial Times called his song a “hit was a heartfelt cry for liberation.” Scholars are still writing about the subject’s role in writing this song decades later. Beyond that song, he co-wrote a song for Divine, his work post-Somerville is discussed in the Encyclopedia of Popular Music, another book about chart-toppers, and in a book about Donna Sommer, all which I found with a few clicks. Bearian (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Which band member are you talking about? I ask, given that I have nominated two articles here and you don't specify who "he" refers to here. Though I'll admit that a good amount of the sourcing you've provided is pretty impressive, I'd recommend citing them within the article itself too. But as for you talking about co-writing an iconic '80s track and roles within the group, please see WP:INHERIT and WP:BANDMEMBER per the above back-and-forth. The last couple of sources you cite certainly contribute to independent notability, but the Independent and Guardian articles are about the song, so while they are from reliable sources and usable on the article, I don't think they contribute to notability for either band member since they're about the song and group, regardless of the individuals who contributed to either. You have found some good sourcing from those books though, so I might loosen up my position a little based on those. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified above by Bearian including reliable books and academic papers so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion or merge is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Maddi Wilde (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 unable to find sufficient coverage of this footballer to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. A few transactional announcements (2023, 2024), but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I originally reviewed this article and passed it because a brief search for sources I did found 1 2 plus the articles listed in the nomination, all of which are secondary sourced articles about her, and include more than trivial content. Some of them are based around transfer announcements, but they all contain more than a passing mention with content such as quotes and information about her as a player. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- The routine transactional announcements have two sentences of coverage each, with the rest being quotes. Every mention of Wilde in the OneFootball article is a re-hashing of something she said while the WSLFullTime article is another routine transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I'm missing a WP:NSPORTS policy here but what is the policy that says articles about transactions don't count towards coverage? I would also dispute the characterization of the OneFootball article. It's an article focusing on coverage of things she said and her performance on the field as well as her relation to the team, she is the primary subject of the article; I can't really see anything that wouldn't make it WP:SIGCOV. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- The routine transactional announcements have two sentences of coverage each, with the rest being quotes. Every mention of Wilde in the OneFootball article is a re-hashing of something she said while the WSLFullTime article is another routine transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I originally reviewed this article and passed it because a brief search for sources I did found 1 2 plus the articles listed in the nomination, all of which are secondary sourced articles about her, and include more than trivial content. Some of them are based around transfer announcements, but they all contain more than a passing mention with content such as quotes and information about her as a player. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Quotes from the subject are not significant coverage. We want to see what other people say about Wilde, not what she says about herself and her team. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Sourcing is nowhere close to the IRS SIGCOV required by NSPORT. The OneFootball article has zero secondary independent coverage of Wilde: every single sentence is either reporting what she said or is about something other than her. And on top of that it's also a reprint of a FAWSL piece, so it and the routine transactional announcement count as ONE source of non-GNG coverage. Not to mention that FAWSL appears to be SPS -- it's essentially a blog written and edited by one person, and such sources can NEVER be cited in BLPs. So in effect we have no RS coverage at all. JoelleJay (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per JoelleJay, not much else to add. Note that Wilde is young and may become notable in the future so no prejudice against creating again should she gain some significant coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- PensionBee (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)
Unlikely to meet NCORP; no reliable sources The editing spirit (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep this and this seem like independent, significant and reliable sources and there's even more coverage in the news search example. Article needs improvement. Orange sticker (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- List of entertainment events at Liverpool Arena (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:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. mikeblas (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- List of entertainment events at the O2 Arena (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:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Weakly stated inclusion criteria does not match title. mikeblas (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 12. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 16:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Planet Rugby (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)
Recreated and deleted countless times, was recreated by a indefinitely blocked editor with the edit summary "the day wikipedia admins decide not to be DUMB, this will be allowed as an article." Still lacking secondary sources. No indication of in-depth secondary source coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union, Websites, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete and re-SALT. Can't find any WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources in my own WP:BEFORE, and there's certainly nothing to work with in the article. No valid redirect target either. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only prior AfD for this was almost 19 years ago. Since then, it was correctly deleted several times under WP:G4, and a few more times under speedy criteria that are no longer used. By itself, "previously deleted" is no longer a valid reason to delete the page. We need consensus based on source assessment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Rachel Morgan (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:BLP with no secondary sourcing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions. Book is notable and notability is not inherited. scope_creepTalk 21:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Archaeology. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete, not yet notable under WP:NAUTHOR (only one book) or WP:NPROF (too early career, doesn't meet any of the criteria). -- asilvering (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)- @Asilvering: I don't think WP:NAUTHOR says anything about more than one book being required? – Joe (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- When an author only has one book, and all the coverage is about the book and not biographical coverage of the author, it's the book that's notable, not the author. If you want to argue that she's a notable author for having written the "significant or well-known work", Sins of the Shovel... well, I can't stop you, but I don't think that's a good argument. -- asilvering (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's not exactly my argument. It's an explicit SNG (WP:NAUTHOR, emphasis added:
[...] a significant or well-known work or collective body of work
). Whether you frame it an article on the author or an article on the book, the content is the same, making it rather inconsequential which one is the 'notable' entity. – Joe (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's not exactly my argument. It's an explicit SNG (WP:NAUTHOR, emphasis added:
- When an author only has one book, and all the coverage is about the book and not biographical coverage of the author, it's the book that's notable, not the author. If you want to argue that she's a notable author for having written the "significant or well-known work", Sins of the Shovel... well, I can't stop you, but I don't think that's a good argument. -- asilvering (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: I don't think WP:NAUTHOR says anything about more than one book being required? – Joe (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, England, United States of America, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to the book, which is at Sins of the Shovel. -- asilvering (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to a stub on the notable book, as alternative to deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Russ Woodroofe: There is no article on the book. Are you proposing that we move this article to being about it? – Joe (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, essentially. Per WP:BLP1E, it would be better in this circumstance to cover the notable material in an article on the book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I don't object to his outcome; I think the content would be basically the same. My preference is still for keeping this title, though, since it doesn't really matter either way and a) that it is what the original author of this article chose and b) it's quite likely the subject will write more books. – Joe (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Joe Roe, there is one, not sure how I missed it the first time either: Sins of the Shovel. -- asilvering (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh right, thanks. It was created from the content of this article, which the creator of the article on the book then blanked and redirected there. Which was... unorthodox. – Joe (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, essentially. Per WP:BLP1E, it would be better in this circumstance to cover the notable material in an article on the book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Russ Woodroofe: There is no article on the book. Are you proposing that we move this article to being about it? – Joe (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. If the book is notable (amply demonstrated by the sources cited in the article), then so is the author per WP:NAUTHOR#3. Whether we cover them separately, together under the author's name, or together under the book's title is inconsequential. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- That is not consensus. The author must be standalone notable as well. I've never seen that statement at Afd in more than 10 years. They are many many famous books where the author is virtually unknown, even in the modern period. They don't like the limelight, don't give interviews or readings or go to conferences or conventions. They are unknown and by any defintion they would fail WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 10:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NAUTHOR has wide consensus and has been stable for years. It reads:
This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if [... t]he 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, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series).
- The subject of this article has written a significant work, Sins of the Shovel: Looting, Murder, and the Evolution of American Archaeology, which has been the subject of at least six independent reviews in periodicals (cited in the article). Hence, they meet WP:NAUTHOR.
- I alluded to the logic behind this above: if we can write an article on a book, we can write an article on its author – even if the content is just
John Smith is the author of Notable Book, a [remainder based on significant coverage of the book]
. Whether to call this article "John Smith" or "Notable Book" barely affects the content and is a question of article titling and framing rather than notability or deletion. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)- I know what it reads and what it means. I've done 100's of book and author Afd's, over the years. I'm acutely aware of the policy. They are one of the most common article types that gets sent to Afd. The author must be notable on their own to have the article. Notability is not inherited. That is long-establised consensus. I could point to 1000's Afd's where the statement has been made, following established policy. The book is certainly notable, but the author isn't yet. You just have to look at how the industry is structured. If you followed They must be standalone notable. List of books review. By your logic every self-published author would have have an article on here. scope_creepTalk 11:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Scope creep, I think you're right about the outcome of AfDs, but I don't think that's an accurate conclusion about Joe's logic. Those self-published authors rarely get book reviews in reliable sources that would count for notability. Frankly, I think Joe's logic is perfectly correct (what does it matter if the article on a book is at the author's name or the book's title?), but it would be a really eccentric outcome for an AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be strange outcome. I don't know what has changed in the 6 months-odd interim where I wasn't doing Afd. scope_creepTalk 12:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's quite a common outcome for academics, at least. A common objection to WP:NPROF is that it lets us have articles on people for whom there could be little or no biographical sources available. Which is true, but following the logic above it just means that the notable entity is John Smith's work not John Smith. But actually calling the article that would be dumb, so we don't do it. – Joe (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Odd that this long-established consensus followed in hundred of AfDs isn't written down anywhere, then, and that the notability guideline for authors explicitly contradicts it. – Joe (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you can find a handful of AfDs (or even one, honestly) for authors that have been kept on the grounds that an author has a single book with multiple reviews, I'd be very interested to see them. -- (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- asilvering, no specific AFD comes to mind right now but after closing hundreds (thousands?) of these discussions over the past 4 1/2 years, I'm sure that this has happened. There are authors, like Harper Lee, who, throughout most of her life, was notable for writing only onw book but it was a highly notable one. Also, many AFDs are sparsely attended and if there is a strong consensus that the book is notable and the reviews are prestigious, then it's likely that the article will be Kept. Liz Read! Talk! 19:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, Harper Lee is a good index case. I've used that exact example before when explaining to AfC submitters what kind of coverage one might need to be notable on a single book. (Though, obviously, she's rather extremely notable, so it's not exactly fair. Someone half as famous as Harper Lee is still going to pass any kind of AfD with flying colours.) This is an early career archaeologist with a well-reviewed book. They're very much not in the same league. -- asilvering (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think that WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E are the relevant standards. For example, Harper Lee has been covered enough to not be a low-profile individual, and her relationship with the book is well-documented and substantial, even though she was for a long time covered only in the context of the one book. Also, the To Kill A Mockingbird is such a significant book that it is worthwhile covering both author and book. None of the reasons to cover Harper Lee apply here, at least so far as I can see. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- I suspect the point of disagreement comes down to the interpretation of
significant or well-known work
in WP:NAUTHOR. Some seem to (reasonably) interpret that as meaning a work of literary significance, as with Harper Lee. For me, it is closer to the "significant" of WP:SIGCOV – just something that has been the subject of detailed coverage in independent reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I suspect the point of disagreement comes down to the interpretation of
- I think that WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E are the relevant standards. For example, Harper Lee has been covered enough to not be a low-profile individual, and her relationship with the book is well-documented and substantial, even though she was for a long time covered only in the context of the one book. Also, the To Kill A Mockingbird is such a significant book that it is worthwhile covering both author and book. None of the reasons to cover Harper Lee apply here, at least so far as I can see. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, Harper Lee is a good index case. I've used that exact example before when explaining to AfC submitters what kind of coverage one might need to be notable on a single book. (Though, obviously, she's rather extremely notable, so it's not exactly fair. Someone half as famous as Harper Lee is still going to pass any kind of AfD with flying colours.) This is an early career archaeologist with a well-reviewed book. They're very much not in the same league. -- asilvering (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have the time to do so, but I think if you looked back through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators/archive 2 you would find many. – Joe (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I tend to watch that delsort list pretty closely (as does David Eppstein, who below calls the redirect to book "our standard outcome") and I can't recall any, which is why I'm asking. -- asilvering (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- asilvering, no specific AFD comes to mind right now but after closing hundreds (thousands?) of these discussions over the past 4 1/2 years, I'm sure that this has happened. There are authors, like Harper Lee, who, throughout most of her life, was notable for writing only onw book but it was a highly notable one. Also, many AFDs are sparsely attended and if there is a strong consensus that the book is notable and the reviews are prestigious, then it's likely that the article will be Kept. Liz Read! Talk! 19:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you can find a handful of AfDs (or even one, honestly) for authors that have been kept on the grounds that an author has a single book with multiple reviews, I'd be very interested to see them. -- (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Scope creep, I think you're right about the outcome of AfDs, but I don't think that's an accurate conclusion about Joe's logic. Those self-published authors rarely get book reviews in reliable sources that would count for notability. Frankly, I think Joe's logic is perfectly correct (what does it matter if the article on a book is at the author's name or the book's title?), but it would be a really eccentric outcome for an AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I know what it reads and what it means. I've done 100's of book and author Afd's, over the years. I'm acutely aware of the policy. They are one of the most common article types that gets sent to Afd. The author must be notable on their own to have the article. Notability is not inherited. That is long-establised consensus. I could point to 1000's Afd's where the statement has been made, following established policy. The book is certainly notable, but the author isn't yet. You just have to look at how the industry is structured. If you followed They must be standalone notable. List of books review. By your logic every self-published author would have have an article on here. scope_creepTalk 11:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- That is not consensus. The author must be standalone notable as well. I've never seen that statement at Afd in more than 10 years. They are many many famous books where the author is virtually unknown, even in the modern period. They don't like the limelight, don't give interviews or readings or go to conferences or conventions. They are unknown and by any defintion they would fail WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 10:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to the book, our standard outcome for authors of only one book but one that is arguably notable. And while we're at it refocus the article on the book to say something about the book based on its published reviews instead of merely being a rehash of the author's back cover blurb, sourced only to that blurb. As for the argument above over whether authoring one book should be enough for the author to also be notable: see WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @David Eppstein: I knew the secret sauce was there somewhere. This settles it. scope_creepTalk 14:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Is a book an 'event'? – Joe (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @David Eppstein: I knew the secret sauce was there somewhere. This settles it. scope_creepTalk 14:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I find the suggestion that a book is notable but not the author bizarre outside of the exceptional cases that scope creep describes (e.g., ghostwriting cases), but I can't see that here; Morgan is happy to appear on scholarly podcasts, blog about careers, write for popular magazines, etc. She's also listed in various places for her contribution to particular digs etc., so she's hardly unknown. And remember that this is a particularly widely reviewed book. Not many academics or first-time authors can boast a lengthy review in the New York Times. WP:AUTHOR does not say (as pointed out) that multiple books are required, and WP:1E doesn't apply, as no one is claiming that Morgan is notable for her role in some event (e.g., for an archeologist, a particular discovery); the claim is that she's notable for her creative output. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Per the above discussion of the 'unorthodox' creation of the book article, we literally cannot delete this article. If the consensus is to go with the (bizarre, in my view) 'book not author' approach, a history merge would be necessary. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to the book. Notability is not WP:INHERITED. A book can be notable but that does not, in fact, imply its author is notabble for a page. For that we would need multiple reliable independent secondary sources, with significant coverage in each, of the author. That has not been shown to exist and I don't see it in searches, so redirect will serve the reader best. Searching on the author will then take the reader to their notable work, which includes some author biography. (Not much at present). Note that a redirect preserves page history, which should allay Josh Milburn's concerns above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keeping the article or Redirecting this page title to the article on their book.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Deadbeat Films (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)
Not a notable film studio, as its IMDb entry clearly shows. Tellingly, none of the cited sources even mention the studio. Additionally, notability is not inherited from films that the studio happened to be involved in. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and United Kingdom. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete : Per nominator's reason. Came across the page and had to make my own find out. The notable movies never claimed in any reliable source that Deadbeat Films was their movie studio production. Maybe reason why it was not even listed on the IMDB platform. So many unreliable source which also fails WP:GNG of the subject article.--Gabriel (……?) 22:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm an intern working for the studio itself. As per my other comment, I apologize about the source misinformation. I'm doing my best to improve it, but I'm still incredibly new to this internship and even Wikipedia editing itself. I request more time for it to get fixed up. We're all very busy, so it will take some time, but it will be improved. If anything, some tips on how to improve it would be fantastic. Thanks! MNLewis21 (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm an intern working for the studio itself. It's just smaller than what we're used to and it's in England. I'm not entirely sure where you live, but I definitely think it's more Indie British than anything Well Known American. I've just been hired on, and I believe part of my job is to freshen up and work on the various Wikipedia pages for the studio, its films, and its employees. Another intern started what I'm working on right now. It's a bunch of busy people on board and just needs its due time to cook in the oven. Thanks! MNLewis21 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. Can you further explain more about your internal team and their works towards Wikipedia they intend to get started on. You mentioned some of your colleagues has started what you were currently working on. Can you as well list those draft. That will help. Also is the current article creator of the “Deadbeat Films” part of your internal team. Things needs to be clearer. Gabriel (……?) 19:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- To be honest I'm not entirely sure, unfortunately. I believe the one who initially wrote and researched the articles relating to the studio and its employees has left the company since they were also an intern, but I can't quite confirm that. I've been keeping in touch with my employer Brook Driver, a creative director and screenwriter for the studio, about the articles' status and the advice I'm receiving (thank you very much, by the way). They're still trying to kickstart getting their online presence more well known and complete. As for drafts within the studio itself I don't have access to that just yet. MNLewis21 (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I was the one that created the initial Wikipedia article for Deadbeat Films. I was an intern under Brook Driver at the time and designed this page. The creation of the page was done for no compensation and was based upon research of my own in an attempt to avoid biases and to follow the terms and rules of Wikipedia. I do acknowledge though that this was the first page I had ever created, so any issues present are all my own. I am willing to assist in any way I can in fixing the page if possible. I do believe that the company does meet the standards of having a Wikipedia page, especially when looking at pages for other previously released independent films. This article from TheGuardian directly talks about their recent film Swede Caroline and namedrops Brook Driver specifically: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/apr/17/swede-caroline-review-marrow-mockumentary-is-gourd-for-a-laugh This article from Little Black Book specifically discusses the merging of Deadbeat Films with Toma Productions (Direct connection to The Devil's Harmony): https://lbbonline.com/news/deadbeat-films-appoints-anthony-toma-as-head-of-production CFORMAN12 (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- The official Swede Caroline poster also does feature the Deadbeat Films logo on it: https://www.swedecaroline.com/synopsis/ CFORMAN12 (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Those sources fail to demonstrate the notability of the studio. The Guardian source is a film review, not a company profile, and doesn't mention "Deadbeat Films" anywhere. As I stated in the AfD nomination, the studio doesn't gain notability from its people or products. Unless I'm mistaken, the LLB source looks like a press release. And the film website is, similarly, not an independent source. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 17:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- The official Swede Caroline poster also does feature the Deadbeat Films logo on it: https://www.swedecaroline.com/synopsis/ CFORMAN12 (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I was the one that created the initial Wikipedia article for Deadbeat Films. I was an intern under Brook Driver at the time and designed this page. The creation of the page was done for no compensation and was based upon research of my own in an attempt to avoid biases and to follow the terms and rules of Wikipedia. I do acknowledge though that this was the first page I had ever created, so any issues present are all my own. I am willing to assist in any way I can in fixing the page if possible. I do believe that the company does meet the standards of having a Wikipedia page, especially when looking at pages for other previously released independent films. This article from TheGuardian directly talks about their recent film Swede Caroline and namedrops Brook Driver specifically: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/apr/17/swede-caroline-review-marrow-mockumentary-is-gourd-for-a-laugh This article from Little Black Book specifically discusses the merging of Deadbeat Films with Toma Productions (Direct connection to The Devil's Harmony): https://lbbonline.com/news/deadbeat-films-appoints-anthony-toma-as-head-of-production CFORMAN12 (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- On the note of communication with Brook himself: I'm in America and he is in England, so the time zones have a large gap in between them. We are doing our best to communicate in a timely manner despite this hurdle. MNLewis21 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- To be honest I'm not entirely sure, unfortunately. I believe the one who initially wrote and researched the articles relating to the studio and its employees has left the company since they were also an intern, but I can't quite confirm that. I've been keeping in touch with my employer Brook Driver, a creative director and screenwriter for the studio, about the articles' status and the advice I'm receiving (thank you very much, by the way). They're still trying to kickstart getting their online presence more well known and complete. As for drafts within the studio itself I don't have access to that just yet. MNLewis21 (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. Can you further explain more about your internal team and their works towards Wikipedia they intend to get started on. You mentioned some of your colleagues has started what you were currently working on. Can you as well list those draft. That will help. Also is the current article creator of the “Deadbeat Films” part of your internal team. Things needs to be clearer. Gabriel (……?) 19:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have one COI editor who I think we can view as an unbolded Keep, Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Matthew Ellis (police commissioner) (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)
Local elected officials are not notable through WP:NPOL, the one source listed is a run of the mill election report, which does not contribute to the subject passing WP:GNG. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Police, Politics, and England. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:OFFICEHOLDER. The article is short and needs updating but is about a holder of a notable office who held the post for two terms. This discussion has been had on previous occasions, but do note that the office of police commissioners in the UK is different to that of a police commissioner in the United States. This is Paul (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- PCCs (including this one) have received significant press coverage, albeit often on a local level. A police constituency can cover a population of several hundred thousand, or even into the millions. Indeed, the population of the Staffordshire area is around 1.146 million. Compare that to a Member of Parliament, whose constituency contains roughly 76,000 people, and a London Assembly member, whose constituency covers less than a million. Consequently it is a notable post, and the holder of it is likely to attract ongoing media attention, thus making them notable. As I have said previously, the consensus at the time these offices were created was that they were notable in the same way we create articles for every MP, MSP, Member of the Senedd and so on. I've also suggested that perhaps what is needed is a wider debate on how we deal with articles about people who hold these posts. This is Paul (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- There's nothing in NPOL that covers police and crime commissioners. AusLondonder (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's something we should address though because these articles get nominated for AfD from time to time, and there's no clear guidelines for them. While they're not at the level of MPs they're also not at the level of local councillors. This is Paul (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- There's nothing in NPOL that covers police and crime commissioners. AusLondonder (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- PCCs (including this one) have received significant press coverage, albeit often on a local level. A police constituency can cover a population of several hundred thousand, or even into the millions. Indeed, the population of the Staffordshire area is around 1.146 million. Compare that to a Member of Parliament, whose constituency contains roughly 76,000 people, and a London Assembly member, whose constituency covers less than a million. Consequently it is a notable post, and the holder of it is likely to attract ongoing media attention, thus making them notable. As I have said previously, the consensus at the time these offices were created was that they were notable in the same way we create articles for every MP, MSP, Member of the Senedd and so on. I've also suggested that perhaps what is needed is a wider debate on how we deal with articles about people who hold these posts. This is Paul (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- delete per WP:OFFICEHOLDER. A police commissioner at this level is unlikely to attract coverage beyond routine spokesbeing reporting, and there's no claim of that in the article. Possibly he could be redirected to the list of officeholders if must but personally I'm not inclined to take AtD as a requirement. Mangoe (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Looking at sources, which ones provide SIGCOV?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Steve Tappin (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 appears to be a non-notable individual, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. Most of the sources cited in the article and on the talk page are passing mentions, interviews, primary, routine coverage, or hearsay, none of which provide in-depth coverage. The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, off-wiki evidence suggests potential undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry. GSS 💬 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. GSS 💬 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in the talkpage of this article there are lot of significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 03:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Xegma Do you really research on topics or just go on voting 'delete' at AfDs? Did you check the talk page of this article? There are significant coverage in China Daily and The Telegraph and all are present in the talk page. Even nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. Unless it is a UPE issue, there is no reason to delete. It is a Keep. Hitro talk 21:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- The articles you are referring to seem to be paid promotional pieces, structured as interviews, which often include sections like "bio" and "CV" at the end of the article—something rarely found in genuine editorial news. It's a common feature of sponsored content. Additionally, the Telegraph article lacks an author byline, which raises questions about whether it was even produced by their editorial team. GSS 💬 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The China Daily article, the one I am referring to, was written by Andrew Moody. I hope you are not implying that Andrew Moody, a renowned journalist and recipient of the Friendship Medal (China) from the Chinese government, was just an editor of paid promotional pieces.
- The Telegraph article, which is almost 16 years old, appears to be written by Dominic White and must have been published on the old format of the website of The Telegraph which was significantly different from current one. Please check the other articles of same years, you won't find author bylines.
- Apart from those, I also see WP:SIGCOV in this, a South China Morning Post article.
- I see that this BLP article was created on Wikipedia in 2008 and being nominated for deletion now due to some recent UPE activities. IMO, it's more appropriate to restore the best version of the article rather than delete it entirely. If you have a case that this has been a UPE product from the start then I'll rest my case. Hitro talk 15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- HitroMilanese, I respect your expertise, but I must point out that all the articles you've mentioned are essentially interviews, which do not meet the standards of independent sources required by WP:GNG. For instance, the China Daily article explicitly states in the second paragraph, "Steve Tappin says," while the Telegraph article includes phrases like "But Tappin, whom I meet" and "Talking to him, it almost seems..." Similarly, the South China Morning Post piece follows the same pattern. These sources rely heavily on hearsay and fail to meet the criteria for WP:IS.
- Regarding the absence of a byline in The Telegraph, I managed to find many articles, both older and from the same time period (even 2008), with proper author attribution, such as this. It's unfair to say the byline is missing simply because it could have been published in an older format of the website, where bylines were not prominently displayed.
- Additionally, the article was created by a single-purpose account (SPA) with no contributions outside this topic. Given the subject's history of hiring freelancers to update his article, it is highly likely that the SPA either has a conflict of interest or was hired to create this article. GSS 💬 06:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The articles you are referring to seem to be paid promotional pieces, structured as interviews, which often include sections like "bio" and "CV" at the end of the article—something rarely found in genuine editorial news. It's a common feature of sponsored content. Additionally, the Telegraph article lacks an author byline, which raises questions about whether it was even produced by their editorial team. GSS 💬 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Xegma Do you really research on topics or just go on voting 'delete' at AfDs? Did you check the talk page of this article? There are significant coverage in China Daily and The Telegraph and all are present in the talk page. Even nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. Unless it is a UPE issue, there is no reason to delete. It is a Keep. Hitro talk 21:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment : I am posting on behalf of Steve Tappin, so I assume my vote would not count, but I just wanted to bring to your attention that Mr. Tappin meets the criteria for WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. As WP:AUTHOR, if there are multiple reviews of his work he would qualify. Below are some links to his book reviews
- https://www.managementtoday.co.uk/books-special-steve-tappin-tells-us-secret/article/845739 - book review
- https://timesnewsgroup.com.au/geelongtimes/living/renowned-authors-to-share-secrets-on-personal-development/ - Book review
- https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-85788-513-2 - The Secrets of CEOs - Book Review
- https://kimtasso.com/book-review-the-awareness-code-the-secrets-to-emotional-empowerment-for-incredible-leadership-by-wayne-linton-and-steve-tappin/ - Book Review (Even tough this is a blog, the original article is from February 2022 edition of Professional Marketing magazine, as stated
- https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/m/eduonline/2009-11/23/content_9103252.htm - Book Review, contains quotations, but about half the article is original journalist commentary
- In addition WP:BASIC states that “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;” Tappin has over 40 articles online as you can also see some posted in the tal page. Also the following article is in depth:
- https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/vGunLo5swZ5apoTkVPeZcK/Steve-Tappin--The-author-spills-his-secrets.html - very indepth
- Finally, as per WP:ENT he would qualify because he was the host of BBC TV show CEO GURU for a long time - over two years - and has been on at least 30 episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzsoth (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources presented above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Jennie (dog) (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)
Not inherently notable, happy to merge with Steve Darling. Bringing to AFD as I'm not sure if I'm missing something that makes this notable enough for it's own article. Lordseriouspig 07:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete The sources aren't discussing Jennie independently from Steve Darling. There's not much to merge either, since the main points are already covered in that article. hinnk (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete/merge Not independently notable from Steve Darling. Reywas92Talk 14:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, as article creator- I'm not strongly opposed to a merge but I created a separate article because the level of sustained media coverage over time is indicative of independent notability, e.g. this Sky News segment from two days ago in which she was the primary focus- most media focus is very much primarily focused on Jennie, rather than primarily focused on Steve Darling and discussing her only as an aside. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete/merge This doesn't feel like the subject of a separate page, and it's unlikely to be expandable either without resorting to puffery. --gilgongo (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
"She is not the first guide dog to serve in Westminster, as House of Lords members Baron Blunkett and Baron Holmes of Richmond also use guide dogs in the chamber.[4]"
where is the wiki page for themTravelrisk (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Agreed with the above that there is nothing to show that she has any notability of her own, independent of her owner, and as all of the main points are covered already in Steve Darling's article, there is no need for a merge. I have no objections to having it Redirect to Steve Darling as well, if others think that would be useful. Rorshacma (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Without more support for Keep, the options here are Deletion or Merger. Let's give this discussion a few more days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Steve Darling]. Although the sources on Jennie are good and they seem to meet WP:GNG, there isn't much content to warrant a separate article. She is adequately covered in the Steve Darling article, which can be expanded if more information about her becomes available.DesiMoore (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Jeremy Curl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Photography, Japan, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete yes mostly the sections are unsourced. Xegma(talk) 03:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Have added sources and more about his recent film on AppleTV 31.217.244.67 (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a lot of content was added to this article after its nomination. Could editors review the additions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Healthera (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)
it does not provide sufficient independent, reliable sources that prove the company's notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Loewstisch (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Websites, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- List of Royal Yacht Squadron members (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:NLIST. Might be WP:A3 eligible. Conyo14 (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete It looks like before it was removed, the list was mostly sourced from this unsourced (random?) list of supposed members of the squadron. cyberdog958Talk 20:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Merge the full content (ie, before it was disruptively removed, eg [13]), to Royal Yacht Squadron. Each individual item on the list should be checked to see if their inclusion is supported by the content of their own biographical articles, but there's no reason to delete this list and no reason to remove the list of names wholesale without checking individual ones. -- asilvering (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also, a random sampling of half a dozen members (those that have actual articles) shows none of them even mention the RYS. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Big Church Festival (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 boldy merged this article over a year ago, but just noticed that my redirect was reverted in October. This festival fails WP:NCONCERT/WP:NCORP (which I think applies because this is a non-profit festival, i.e., an organization that puts on an event once a year). I have been unable to find sustained, in-depth coverage of the festival. As there is still merged content in Christian music festival#Worldwide, I propose restoring the redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Religion, Christianity, and United Kingdom. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep There seems to be be enough coverage to warrant the page to be kept and improved on. cyberdog958Talk 02:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- We should not count Event Industry News toward notability; per WP:TRADES, there's a presumption against using industry trade publications to establish notability. Christian Today and Cross Rhythms are both from 2015, hence why I noted this event lacks sustained coverage. Those are the only sources with SIGCOV I could find; the rest of the coverage I've been able to find are routine announcements that particular bands are performing at the event. In sum, two reviews from 2015 isn't enough to establish notability in my view. Cross Rhythms is also an interview with the founder, which means it lacks independence. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep as per the Christianity Today piece and the Cross Rhythms piece which has a significant coverage prose introduction before the interview part, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Promotional. Irrelevant. with hardly any reliable or independent references--Alon9393 (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Irrelevant is a personal opinion not a notability factor and promotionalism can be edited out, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- This editor frequently argues an article is relevant or irrelevant, I'm not sure what that means. Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Irrelevant is a personal opinion not a notability factor and promotionalism can be edited out, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep: Looks irrelevant and not sure about the notability of the subject.Santoshsah4 (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean by
[l]ooks irrelevant
? If you'renot sure about the notability of the subject
, why do you think this article should be kept? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)- Pinging @Santoshsah4. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Insillaciv (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alexis Strum (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 think the sources here meet WP:NBASIC or WP:NM, save for a writing credit on Why Not Us, which is rather weak on its own. Consult the table of relevant sources in the article. Nothing in my WP:before search was of higher quality.
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Templeton, Tom (31 July 2005). "Introducing...Alexis Strum". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 September 2023. | little content outside of fluff and quotes | ✘ No | ||
Scott, Danni (5 October 2023). "'A mix-up over ice cream on Lorraine cost me my music career 20 years ago – but now I'm back'". The Metro. Retrieved 5 October 2023. | ~ | WP:METRO | ✘ No | |
Strum, Alexis (23 July 2023). "I'm finally the pop star I dreamed of becoming – and I'm in my forties". The Independent. Retrieved 2 September 2023. | written by Strum | ~ | ✘ No | |
Krieger, Candice (3 March 2011). "Alexis Strum lands a starring role at your fingertips". The Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved 2 September 2023. | Short article from when watching TV on phones was novel, with a few sentences of background on Strum at the end. | ✘ No | ||
Glanvill, Natalie (17 June 2015). "Kylie Minogue Songwriter to stage Homeland meets Loose Women play". Guardian Series. Retrieved 2 September 2023. | Mostly quotes or other stuff obviously sourced to Strum | ? | ~ | ✘ No |
"Comic documentary about failure in development". British Comedy Guide. 15 October 2018. Retrieved 2 September 2023. | mostly quotes from Strum | ~ | ✘ No | |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. |
Mach61 04:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Theatre, and England. Mach61 04:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Did a teeny bit more searching, noting small amount of coverage here. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree with the nomination for deletion.
- Strum has co-written two songs on popular 00s albums - Come and Get it by Rachel Stevens and Still Standing by Kylie Minogue in addition to the single, Why Not Us? by Monrose.
- Under Notability (music), Strum therefore qualifies under the criteria:
- 'Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.'
- In addition, Strum is eligible for inclusion under the criteria as a performer:
- 'Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.'
- 'Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).' ('Addicted' was released by Warner Bros. major label release - https://open.spotify.com/artist/49DJil4JyZdW8Upoilkfom?si=uoQw-rvcTSOKuvGOyykJkw - her second album 'Cocoon' was also a major label recording, which was shelved and has now been released and distributed on an 'independent label with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable - https://open.spotify.com/album/7vNUTEQtnCVWel68cxx5sC?si=fMuK_Zl5Q1mgtyt1TSqOAQ and https://hmv.com/store/music/cd/cocoon)
- Her listing is incomplete, but she is featured on the UK Official Charts Company website: https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/alexis-strum/
- In addition, she has released two albums as a recording artist, which are widely available on all streaming platforms, with 8.3k monthly streams on Spotify.
- She is also eligible for inclusion under:
- 'Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).'
- Go My Own Way was the theme tune to the 'network television show' Vital Signs (TV Show) in the UK, which aired on ITV, starring Tamzin Outhwaite.
- She is also eligible for inclusion under:
- 'Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.'
- The music video for Bad Haircut featured Tom Ellis and was aired on The Box and MTV Hits, and has over 100,000 views on YoUTube.
- She is also eligible for inclusion under:
- 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.'
- The album 'Cocoon' has received a large amount of press attention since its initial planned release in 2006:
- https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/music/alexis-strum---cocoon-mercury-1024671 - https://retropopmagazine.com/alexis-strum-cocoon-album-review/
- Strum's music career has also been the feature of multiple, non-trivial, published works, as well as being mentioned in articles where she has been listed as a musical performer, worthy of note:
- https://metro.co.uk/2023/10/04/lorraine-mix-up-destroyed-alexis-strums-career-for-20-years-19596176/ - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl7ld1glk3o - https://www.aol.com/clean-bandit-were-told-stop-233558500.html?guccounter=1 - https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/pop-star-music-alexis-strum-album-b2380472.html - https://player.winamp.com/podcasts/womans-hour-podcast-e59d55dc59 - https://www.theguardian.com/music/2005/aug/23/popandrock - https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/festival-finalises-acts-for-v-line-up-12712 - https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/13337233.kylie-minogue-songwriter-stage-homeland-meets-loose-women-play/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevebritney (talk • contribs) 13:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as well as the above mentioned sources such as The Guardian and the Metro (not convinced it is completely unreliable as the discussion was not clear-cut at RSN) there is also a staff written bio at AllMusic here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've just gone through the RSN discussion links for the Metro and Im not finding any substantial discussion directly about it so unless Im missing a discussion it seems to have been quite a leap to list it as unreliable without a proper discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - In its current state, the article needs to be cleaned up so it is less reliant on unreliable/insignificant sources, but it could then be expanded with info from the sources found in the discussion above. There's enough out there in solid sources like the Guardian and the BBC to at least support a stub article, maybe with more focus on her songwriting success. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Others
Northern Ireland
- Armagh Cricket Club (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 believe the article fails notability. The article cites only a single non-independent source. A search has revealed only non-significant coverage in reference to games or the grounds and such (with the possible exception of this book page I found).
It was previously proposed for deletion in 2011, with the result being a weak keep with the expectation that user:Brocach would try to add sources. It had been more than a decade and the article has not been improved. Lenny Marks (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Northern Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Minor Update: It seems @Guliolopez has been able to find some more sources. I have not been able to review yet weather they constitute significant coverage, but at a glance they seem to be either incidental or non-independent. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Personally I can't support deletion. As noted above, I found and have added a number of sources which allow for the article to be expanded beyond a stub. And, in at least some cases, appear to support a claim to notability. While some of the more in-depth sources available appear to be connected to the subject (including at least one if not both of the "anniversary/history" pieces by Weir (2009) and Duffy (1984)), others seem more independent of the subject. Including the (granted somewhat "local interest") news stories and history coverage in Armagh Today, the Ulster Gazette, and the journal of the Armagh History Group. While I'm not exactly bowled over by these sources (hence the "weak keep" recommendation), outright deletion wouldn't seem appropriate at all. As, even if there was consensus that the org wasn't sufficiently notable for a standalone title, the title could be redirected (and the related content easily merged) to The Mall, Armagh or Armagh#Sport or NCU Senior League or any number of other titles. Personally I think, on balance, that this subject can just about sustain its own title however. Certainly can't support outright deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Others
Scotland
- Steuart 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:BIO without independent sources. User:Namiba 16:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Notability is demonstrated by the author having published books, and by his work being cited by others (see the first AfD). Better sources need to be found, no question. John (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 16:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I can understand why this was submitted for deletion because there were no references on it originally. Unfortunately users over the years have been lazy. I have added some sources, there are also a lot of newspaper articles that mention Steuart Campbell (I have access to Findmypast and Newspapers.com) so I can expand the article with other sources. This for me is a keep. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Out of the 12 citations now in the article, a total of 5 appear to be independent coverage of the subject and his works. Coverage could therefore be better of this science author - but I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt particularly as Psychologist Guy has confirmed further sources which would support WP:BASIC. ResonantDistortion 21:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- St Andrews University Canoe Club (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:ORG. The most significant source among the references is the two-minute BBC clip, where the club was mentioned in passing in an episode of a TV series about the east coast of Scotland. This university sports club lacks the sort of in-depth, national-level coverage required for WP:ORG. I had boldly redirected this to University of St Andrews Athletic Union, but this was revereted. Mz7 (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Sports, and Scotland. Mz7 (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Connall Ewan (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 unable to find enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found some routine transactional announcements (1, 2, 3) and interviews (1, 2, 3), but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. JTtheOG (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- List of entertainment events at The OVO Hydro (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:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. mikeblas (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- List of urban areas in Scotland (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)
Unreferenced (sources are mentioned but not cited anywhere) and is essentially an unnecessary spin-off of List of towns and cities in Scotland by population, using same methodology as the Settlements list (the figures differ slightly due to taking the figures from different years). De-prodded by editor who possibly didn't realise that the above article contains sections for both Localities and multi-locality Settlements, i.e urban areas. Crowsus (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Scotland. Crowsus (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- OK probably merge with List of towns and cities in Scotland by population#Settlements, I indeed hadn't noticed that section. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Skye (song) (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 could not find significant coverage of this single in reliable sources. Fenix Funeral Directors is a website for a funeral home, and the source is titled "Top 10 Runrig Songs For a Funeral". This article can be redirected to Runrig discography, where its chart information is recorded. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, United Kingdom, and Scotland. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect. Doing a BEFORE search is annoying here because the band's origin in the Isle of Skye is frequently mentioned, but this song doesn't appear to have been written about. Mach61 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Goodreg3 opposes for the reasons discussed on his talk page and this AfD discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to point out the recently added subsection regarding coverage of high profile controversy around the charting position of "Skye", which would indicate a degree of notability. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The two Music Week articles are primary sources, so they don't establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- What more do you seriously want? I have provided information on what was clearly a significant event at the time. On one hand, you point out "self published sources" as not being enough, and on the other, you are equally unhappy with published magazines. What is it you are exactly looking for? Goodreg3 (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Generally, significant coverage of a song is something like a review, an analysis of its themes or structure, or a discussion of its role in popular culture. I listed some sources that I would consider significant on the talk page for An Ubhal as Àirde (The Highest Apple), which I did find to be a notable single by Runrig. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I tried and failed (at a level approaching WP:BEFORE) to find an independent description of this supposed controversy.Finally was able to load the Music Week (some kind of geoblock I think). I agree the 19 January 1985 article certainly seems like significant coverage. The 26-1-85 issue is just recapping the 19-1 story and saying bad weather was delaying the investigation. Voorts why is this primary? Music Week doesn't mention being part of Gallup. I can't imagine it is/was based on the tone and third-person references in the articles, but maybe you have reasons. Oblivy (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Generally, significant coverage of a song is something like a review, an analysis of its themes or structure, or a discussion of its role in popular culture. I listed some sources that I would consider significant on the talk page for An Ubhal as Àirde (The Highest Apple), which I did find to be a notable single by Runrig. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- What more do you seriously want? I have provided information on what was clearly a significant event at the time. On one hand, you point out "self published sources" as not being enough, and on the other, you are equally unhappy with published magazines. What is it you are exactly looking for? Goodreg3 (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The two Music Week articles are primary sources, so they don't establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, reporting on an evolving investigation makes it a primary source. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for alerting me to that essay. There seems to be a disconnect between a reporter writing as an eyewitness (see "investigative reports" and footnote a of the essay) and a reporter relying on primary sources generated elsewhere to write an article. I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure you're right this article fits the situation described in the essay let alone policy. I'm not seeing a second significant source in the article-for-deletion, so it may not matter. Oblivy (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I was referring more to the breaking news example, as well as the portion above the examples, which discusses how writing about an event immediately after it occurs is based on the writers' interpretation of events and is thus a primary source. See, for example, this quote: ""Characteristically, primary sources are contemporary to the events and people described ..." voorts (talk/contributions) 05:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for alerting me to that essay. There seems to be a disconnect between a reporter writing as an eyewitness (see "investigative reports" and footnote a of the essay) and a reporter relying on primary sources generated elsewhere to write an article. I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure you're right this article fits the situation described in the essay let alone policy. I'm not seeing a second significant source in the article-for-deletion, so it may not matter. Oblivy (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to point out the recently added subsection regarding coverage of high profile controversy around the charting position of "Skye", which would indicate a degree of notability. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Charting at 108th place isn't terribly notable. Outside of the charts listed, I don't see any reviews or analyses of the song. Could perhaps redirect to the album? Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 14 September 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
- Finn Ashworth (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 young player who fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 07:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 07:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draft Send to draft space, clearly not main space material. Govvy (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Wales. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify obviously and per Govvy Intrisit (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - I am not wholly averse to draftify, but I don't see how that will help in this case. The subject is non notable. They may be notable one day, but is there any reason to believe that will be soon enough that the draft would not expire? If it will be deleted anyway, we might as well let it go now. A WP:REFUND would be available in the future if they became notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:37, 19 September 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)