This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to the United Kingdom. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|United Kingdom|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to the United Kingdom.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.
watch |
- See also:
Scan for United Kingdom related AfDs
|
United Kingdom
Rebecca Egan
- Rebecca Egan (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)
Sources are mainly mentions within sources about her mum, and notability is not inherited. The series she has been in are notorious for being series that every British actor has been in. I couldn't find enough to show she meets NACTOR or GNG. Considered merge/redirect to mother's article as ATD, but not convinced that would be helpful. Boleyn (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete could not find any wp:sigcov, named only in mother's obituary with no mention of her profession. Orange sticker (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete- fails GNG.TheLongTone (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
A Quick Shave and Brush-up
- A Quick Shave and Brush-up (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 that this is a notable film. Can be redirected to George Albert Smith (filmmaker)#Selected filmography. Fram (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe merge all these old ones into 1900 in film? Hyperbolick (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to George Albert Smith (filmmaker)#Selected filmography: As I mentioned
in my ES/ in the OLDPROD template on article TP/ when I Dpdd the article (and on creator's TP). Not opposed to K. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)- Actually, it seems that you didn't mention this in this case (you did mention a redirect target in some others though). Fram (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Let me check. Not in my ES, that's right. But please have a look at the OLPROD template on article TP. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, it seems that you didn't mention this in this case (you did mention a redirect target in some others though). Fram (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
A Wreck in a Gale
- A Wreck in a Gale (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 that this 43-second film is notable, hasn't received significant attention. No good redirect target found. Fram (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Meets WP:NFILM as I mentioned in my edit summary when I "PROD-conned" it. See the guideline. Shown at festival more than 5 years after production. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- That line in NFILM gives only a presumption which needs to be supported by reliable sources indicating that it meets WP:GNG. A screening on a niche festival which shows more than 500 such rediscoveries each year is hardly a clear indication of importance, more of being a curio of passing interest. Fram (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing your opinion. I'll stand by my Keep, if you allow me, as I find this short clearly does meet the inclusionary criteria (not only a "line"), which is quite clear. It also proves, btw, that this short has received the "significant attention" you mentioned in your rationale. What you call a "niche festival" has indeed been a very important film event for almost 40 years. You are free to call this attention "a curio of passing interest" but the film has been screened at a very notable festival (much) more than 5 years after its production and that is, I'm afraid, a fact. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- That line in NFILM gives only a presumption which needs to be supported by reliable sources indicating that it meets WP:GNG. A screening on a niche festival which shows more than 500 such rediscoveries each year is hardly a clear indication of importance, more of being a curio of passing interest. Fram (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. N:FILM says "meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film," and that is true here, where there are no reliable sources to describe the notability of this film beyond its mere existence. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Scenes on Mr. Smit's Ostrich Farm
- Scenes on Mr. Smit's Ostrich Farm (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 for this 2 minute film, just included in some websites but without significant attention (e.g. this or this). No obvious redirect target found, if there is one then redirecting is of course acceptable. Fram (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, South Africa, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Joseph Rosenthal (camera operator): Which is an obvious R target, as I mentioned in my ES when DPD the page and on creator's TP. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ladysmith – Naval Brigade Dragging 4.7 Guns into Ladysmith (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 indication that this is a notable film (well, a 31 second static shot). Apparently not only have we no idea who actually made it (just the producre), but we also don't know what is being shown according to this. Perhaps some list for this and many similar non-notable shorts may be feasible, but at the moment I don't see a good redirect target. Perhaps William Kennedy Dickson filmography, which gives an idea of the number of such ultrashort films that were made (and is clearly incomplete, as e.g. this very one isn't on that list). Fram (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, Military, South Africa, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to William Kennedy Dickson filmography: As I mentioned when I DPd the page (and on creator's TP) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC) (Entry is now in the target; sources can be added if R is the path chosen)
Honorary Chaplain to the King
- Honorary Chaplain to the King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is fundamentally flawed. The position of Honorary Chaplain to the King is a military appointment, for serving regular and reserve chaplains in the British and some Commonwealth armed forces. However much of the text refers to Chaplains to the King, who are members of the Ecclesiastical Household of the Royal Household, and are civilians, usually senior parish priests. I do not believe that the article can be repaired. As an alternative to deletion it would have to be wholly rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncox001 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC); listed on the log at 21:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Christianity, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The inaccuracies can easily be ironed out but the topic is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
List of Premier League overseas broadcasters
- List of Premier League overseas broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, United Kingdom, and England. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
2024 UK Independence Party leadership election
- 2024 UK Independence Party leadership election (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)
Lacking coverage in secondary sources. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG. This is a very minor party with no elected representatives and only a couple of thousand members. AusLondonder (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wait, leaning on keep. WP:TOOSOON. Give it a bit more time and more sources and we can probably keep it. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 17:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- WP:TOOSOON is an argument for why an article should not exist... AusLondonder (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, decidedly minor political event. TOOSOON applies to articles and not to nominations that come "too soon". The event is currently covered with two sentences in the UKIP article, and may be expanded to 9-10 sentences there. Geschichte (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly non-notable, no reason to warrant its own article, any more than for leadership elections of the continuing SDP. Anything on this page can by covered on the UKIP page. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
List of Scottish Professional Football League broadcasters
- List of Scottish Professional Football League broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are announcments and does not help to assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, United Kingdom, and Scotland. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Institute of IT Training
- Institute of IT Training (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:NCORP. No significant coverage in reliable sources could be found either under the name "Institute of IT Training" or its apparent new name "Learning & Performance Institute". I know it's not relevant to notability, but the article reads like an advertisement and is borderline WP:G11 despite having 63 revisions over 14 years. Mz7 (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Mz7 (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Searchlight (workshops)
- Searchlight (workshops) (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)
Have moved all the important content to Chailey Heritage School and would WP:BLAR but I feel that would leave an overly broad redirect, so I'm proposing a delete here. Fails WP:GNG and we can cover anything that does on Chailey Heritage School in the Searchlight Workshops section. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Chailey Heritage School#Searchlight Workshops: As creating editor I had hopes that others would enhance this article. I feel it merits targeted WP:BLAR rather than deletion. This then leaves a good entry point for readers. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- You haven't addressed my main claim here, a redirect may be overly broad. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: To aid this decision, I have migrated small but important additional material to the proposed target article and section, including references which were omitted, sourced and referenced the charity number (etc) for Searchlight Workshops, and noted the charity's cessation in 2011. One reference remains primary, but I believe it to be permitted under WP:PRIMARY. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Marion Evans
- Marion Evans (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. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, United Kingdom, and Wales. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2012
- List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2012 (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 is a series of unsourced lists of no encyclopedic value and we're not the Radio Times. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Radio, and Lists. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of the same list:
- List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)*
- List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
* the 2015 does have a single source, but I'm standing by the lack of encylopedic value. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all. Radio 4 is a single UK radio, Book of the Week is one program on the radio station. So we're into a very small audience before asking who would be looking for this list? The answer being nobody. So the nom is correct this information isn't encyclopedic. And its unreferenced because nobody would ever care to talk about the topic in reliable third party media. Desertarun (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete All of em. Redundant lists with no encyclopedic value. As the nom states, Wikipedia is not an Electronic program guide. X (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
XXXDial
- XXXDial (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 * Pppery * it has begun... 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Few mentions anywhere; notability is not established. Joyous! Noise! 19:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Stuart Bell (figure skater)
- Stuart Bell (figure skater) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NSKATE; ineligible for PROD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Robert Thomas Brudenell-Bruce
- Robert Thomas Brudenell-Bruce (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 indication of notability. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Royalty and nobility. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Bruce was previously recorded in the article as being a Royal Navy commodore. This seems to be a result of confusion over the shortened rank "Comm." which in this case referred to commander, Bruce's rank upon retirement. As such it's very unlikely that his military career will provide any notability. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete No credible claim of significance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Ben Obese-Jecty
- Ben Obese-Jecty (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)
Candidates for UK Parliament are not automatically notable. Similarly, writing a few newspaper articles also does not confer notability. Propose deleting and if he is successful in his campaign, it would be appropriate to make a page once he is elected. Drerac (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Cleo Cooper (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG, vast majority of sources cited in article are written by article subject. J2m5 (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as the number of sources appears to indicate notability for journalism purposes as well as his political career. If the decision is not made to keep the article, moving to draft space would make more sense than deletion, which would only mean a well-written article most likely having to be recreated from scratch after the election if he wins. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Alamgir Hashmi
- Alamgir Hashmi (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 BLP reads like a CV. None of the listed works or awards strike me as noteworthy or notable, indicating a failure to meet WP:AUTHOR. Additionally, there appears to be a lack of significant coverage in WP:RS, which means the subject also fails basic WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Poetry, United Kingdom, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Appears in The Oxford Companion to Twentieth-Century Poetry in English (1 ed.) (available through Wikimedia Library, excerpted here):
Hashmi, Alamgir (1951– ), was born in Lahore, educated in Pakistan and the United States, and has worked as a professor of English, editor, and broadcaster. His early work ... is characterized by a terse, witty, imagistic style, and reveals a recurring preoccupation with language, time, and place. The poet's peripatetic career in America, Europe, and Pakistan is reflected in the concerns of his subsequent collections, .... As Hashmi has developed, there has been a broadening of human sympathies and an emerging political awareness which have modified the virtuosity and self-absorption of some of his earliest writing. His most recent publications are ....
- I would vote Keep by WP:GNG if a similar source was found. FYI, I removed the author bio paragraph that was completely uncited and appears to have been included verbatim from the author's personal website. This may be a copyright concern. Suriname0 (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I acknowledge that there is some coverage available. However, the concern lies in the insufficient extent of coverage to meet the WP:SIGCOV. The subject is listed on Oxford Reference, just because some of their work must have been hosted by Oxford University Press but I'm sure that won't make him WP:IHN. -—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Unusually for a poet, there is plenty of in-depth coverage of him and his work to be found [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep While the article needs work, there are tons of citations out there proving this poet meets notability guidelines, including in-depth analysis of the poet's works in various literary journals accessible through the Wikipedia Library.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Mission of the International Organisation for Migration, London
- Mission of the International Organisation for Migration, 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)
No secondary sources. Sole source is government list. Article on an individual office of the IOM which simply states it exists and its location. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. Nothing to merge and an implausible search term. AusLondonder (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think this is a good merge candidate because there's not even enough information to work out if any of the content is even still true. It does seem to still exist from a Google search, but it's certainly not notable outside of its parent article. Redirect not especially good idea other as is not a likely redirect BrigadierG (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator rationale. Local units of larger organizations are not notable unless there are substantial reliable source coverage of it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
No. 659 Squadron AAC
- No. 659 Squadron AAC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article has almost no information not included in either No. 659 Squadron RAF or 1 Regiment Army Air Corps. PercyPigUK (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge No. 659 Squadron RAF into AAC article. Gavbadger (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with No. 659 Squadron, this seems to be one lineage. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge into No. 659 Squadron RAF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge No. 659 Squadron RAF into this article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Tristan Cousins
- Tristan Cousins (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:NSKATE; everything else seems to lack any notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Consulate-General of the United Kingdom, Saint Petersburg
- Consulate-General of the United Kingdom, Saint Petersburg (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)
Lacking secondary sources specifically about the consulate. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Russia, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- We should keep. It's relevant to the wider history of UK - Russia relations. Notable because it was forced to close. Cantab12 (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Sarah Junior School
- Sarah Junior School (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 countered. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, articles about primary schools are only kept if they can be shown to meet WP:NORG. That is not the case here. Indeed, this is an article about a kindergarten. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Kenya, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep It is also a story about a UK-based charity. I added a few references. Hopefully just enough to save this story.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Ruud Buitelaar.Tamsier (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
132 Aviation Support Squadron RLC
- 132 Aviation Support Squadron RLC (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)
Insufficient sources have been provided to prove notability. This article is regarding a company-sized sub-unit. PercyPigUK (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Retitle as 7 Aviation Support Battalion RLC, a battalion sized unit, which will be more notable. This includes 132 Squadron and a couple of other companies. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)- Is 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME the unit you are referring to? PercyPigUK (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME. Retain squadron article as redirect - better references may appear in time. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
No. 677 (Suffolk and Norfolk Yeomanry) Squadron AAC
- No. 677 (Suffolk and Norfolk Yeomanry) Squadron AAC (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)
In my opinion, the article is not notable. Only one reference is listed and it is not independent of the topic of the article. In the case of this article, the squadron is company-sized. PercyPigUK (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
KeepAviation squadrons normally warrant their own articles. Predecessor units were larger: Norfolk Yeomanry and Suffolk Yeomanry have their own articles. And sources do not have to be independent of the topic of an article,. We don't need to write articles on football from sources on cricket. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)- Secondary or tertiary sources determine notability (WP:PSTS) so if they are not included in the article, notability cannot be proven. This article is about an army squadron (company-sized) instead of an RAF squadron (battalion-sized). PercyPigUK (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- There is no requirement for the secondary or tertiary sources that establish notability to actually be used in an article. Notability is proven by their existence, not their presence. WP:BEFORE:
If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)- Merge and Redirect to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- There is no requirement for the secondary or tertiary sources that establish notability to actually be used in an article. Notability is proven by their existence, not their presence. WP:BEFORE:
- Secondary or tertiary sources determine notability (WP:PSTS) so if they are not included in the article, notability cannot be proven. This article is about an army squadron (company-sized) instead of an RAF squadron (battalion-sized). PercyPigUK (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps, the information on the regiment article is virtually the same as what is in the article. Gavbadger (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
John Ratcliff (producer)
- John Ratcliff (producer) (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/WP:NBIO, and I do not believe being a producer for a notable band is an automatic WP:NMUSIC pass either. I could not locate sources with substantial coverage of Ratcliff. All sources cover him only peripherally, as a producer for a-Ha. The article is now primarily an autobiography. Would accept a redirect to a-Ha as an alternative to deletion. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and United Kingdom. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I not only re- produced the final masters of 8 of the tracks on a-ha’s 15 million selling first album Hunting High and Low but I also discovered them in 1983 and kept them, gave them £thousands and helped secure a record deal with Warners. I managed them under contract from 1983 to 1993 and without my financial and creative input they would have returned to Norway and never been heard of again! How dare you propose to delete this article. I have nearly completed my autobiography which inevitably contains the entire story of how I rescued them when they had no money left and put them in my recording studio for 2 years without any return for another 12 months. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Journalism, Television, Advertising, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- agree that REDIRECT to a-Ha is appropriate. Most sources are primary references. The only third party references are more about a-Ha with this subject being mentioned tangentially. Otherwise, this article seems more promotional than anything else. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- How dare you presume! You know nothing. In 1983 a-ha came into my studio but ran out of money after 2 weeks. For the next 2 years I covered every housing cost., food cost and leisure costs out of my own pocket because I believed in their talent.I also let them have free studio time for 2 years during which we recorded and produced nearly all of the tracks on their first album. I became their manager in 1983 and their contract lasted with me until 1993!Their best 10 years to date. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I.will take legal action if you have the cheek to remove this article. My autobiography is almost finished detailing my entire 10 years managing the band and the consequences for both a-ha and myself. 200 million record sales for a start! If you want a copy of my management contract with a-ha just ask. I lost my house and marriage while supporting the band before their success. Buy my autobiography next year and you can read every detail. Nobody, nobody knows the ‘a-ha’ history better than I do. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- How dare you presume! You know nothing. In 1983 a-ha came into my studio but ran out of money after 2 weeks. For the next 2 years I covered every housing cost., food cost and leisure costs out of my own pocket because I believed in their talent.I also let them have free studio time for 2 years during which we recorded and produced nearly all of the tracks on their first album. I became their manager in 1983 and their contract lasted with me until 1993!Their best 10 years to date. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Get your facts right. I discovered the band when they came into my studio and spent 2 weeks recording. I liked what I heard and when they ran out of time and money I supported them for 2 years before Take on Me became a bestseller.I was contractually their Manager from 1983 to 1993. I re-produced 8 out of 10 tracks on their first and most popular album Hunting high and Low. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: There are two decent sources on the article, both telling the story of the recording of "Take On Me": "Talking Away: A-Ha On The Making Of Take On Me" on The Quietus, and "Classic Tracks: A-ha 'Take On Me'" on Sound on Sound. There may be some claim to notability. However, the article subject badgering us and making legal threats on this deletion discussion makes it difficult for me to vote keep. Toughpigs (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you are not going to allow this article to remain then you are ignoring the truth of the matter. I thought the truth was a basic necessity of a site that should only provide fact.I am only writing as a matter of principle. My lawyers will only reveal their legal expertise. Buy the album…my name is all over the sleeve. More times than the band members themselves 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- To toughpig. I don’t give a damn - oh sorry..is that blasphemy? In this day and age? I am in no way making threats! I am merely standing up for myself and the truth.Who is your superior? Put him/her on to it before I wake up my lawyer and we can sort this out legally and properly. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I now understand the reason for your username. Well I am tough too but my lawyer is tougher, and very expensive as you will discover should this minuscule matter not be resolved satisfactorily. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- To tough pig. It says you have ‘2 decent sources’. What better ‘source’ could you have but myself. I discovered, produced and managed ‘a-ha’ for 10 years from 1983 to 1993. I think my knowledge of this entire matter is inevitably going to be seen as the most accurate. Your organisation obviously listens hardest to those names you recognise. You don’t realise that it’s the people behind the names who have a far greater knowledge and understanding for detail than you ever will. Change your username….or is it your real name? I do apologise. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- It will be very easy for me to find out who you really are. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Read my opening statements from the top again. Johnratcliff (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I am not harassing anyone. I am merely pointing out that I am not ‘just’ their producer. I discovered them in 1983, kept, housed, fed and gave them my studio for 2 years,signed them to an extremely lucrative management contract for 5 years and then to a major deal with Warners. That is an awful lot more than ‘producing’ a track don’t you think? Johnratcliff (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I was their manager from 1983 to 1993.I still get royalties!
- Why am I having to justify facts that are common knowledge in my industry? Johnratcliff (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I saw your opening statement and I believe you when you say you've done all those things for the band and were important to their success. But saying things like "
I will take legal action if you have the cheek to remove this article
", "My lawyers will only reveal their legal expertise
", "before I wake up my lawyer and we can sort this out legally
", and "It will be very easy for me to find out who you really are
" is not okay here. You need to avoid making statements that can be construed as legal threats or threats to reveal someone's identity. - "
Why am I having to justify facts that are common knowledge in my industry?
" is a valid question. The answer is that one of the pillars of Wikipedia is that information here is verifiable: readers must be able to check that any information is not just made up. That means we can't rely on what's "common knowledge" in any industry unless it's been published in reliable sources somewhere. When your autobiography is published, we may be able to use it as a source in a-ha (depending on whether it is self-published or not). But we can't just rely on your own personal statements here, even if we believe them. Jfire (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I am not harassing anyone. I am merely pointing out that I am not ‘just’ their producer. I discovered them in 1983, kept, housed, fed and gave them my studio for 2 years,signed them to an extremely lucrative management contract for 5 years and then to a major deal with Warners. That is an awful lot more than ‘producing’ a track don’t you think? Johnratcliff (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- To tough pig. It says you have ‘2 decent sources’. What better ‘source’ could you have but myself. I discovered, produced and managed ‘a-ha’ for 10 years from 1983 to 1993. I think my knowledge of this entire matter is inevitably going to be seen as the most accurate. Your organisation obviously listens hardest to those names you recognise. You don’t realise that it’s the people behind the names who have a far greater knowledge and understanding for detail than you ever will. Change your username….or is it your real name? I do apologise. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I now understand the reason for your username. Well I am tough too but my lawyer is tougher, and very expensive as you will discover should this minuscule matter not be resolved satisfactorily. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- To toughpig. I don’t give a damn - oh sorry..is that blasphemy? In this day and age? I am in no way making threats! I am merely standing up for myself and the truth.Who is your superior? Put him/her on to it before I wake up my lawyer and we can sort this out legally and properly. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I apologise if you feel I was harassing you. ‘a-ha’ is a very sensitive subject for me. I gave up my home and lost my wife and young child on account of my involvement with a-ha. So it is a passionate and sensitive subject.
- I reiterate, I am very sorry to have upset you.
- John Johnratcliff (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you are not going to allow this article to remain then you are ignoring the truth of the matter. I thought the truth was a basic necessity of a site that should only provide fact.I am only writing as a matter of principle. My lawyers will only reveal their legal expertise. Buy the album…my name is all over the sleeve. More times than the band members themselves 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to a-ha (with merging in of any useful information) pending publication of the autobiography referred to by the 217 IP (who appears to be the same person as Johnratcliff?). If it gets reviews in reliable sources, the article can then be reinstated based on those in addition to the few good sources currently present. Notability is borderline at present, since it can't be inherited from the band (and since our criterion for an independent page is notability, not admiration). The article is an under-referenced BLP and the last paragraph is stylistically inappropriate: "PS ... John". But it may be rewritable from sources a year from now. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per above, does not seem independently notable. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per Yngvadottir. I removed a lot of recent COI additions that were entirely unsourced. Those should not be in a BLP. What remains are 4 sources that I will throw into a source analysis table:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirfurboy
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://www.johnratcliff.com/john--a-ha | "In his own words". His own website. WP:SPS | ? Reliable but self promotional | ✘ No | |
https://web.archive.org/web/20220521024623/https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/ha-take-me | I believe it is. Didn't actually check. | He is mentioned in the source several times but there is no significant information about him | ✘ No | |
https://thequietus.com/articles/18805-aha-hunting-high-and-low-take-on-me-review-anniversary | He is mentioned in the source several times but there is no significant information about him | ✘ No | ||
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/01727601 | A primary source that says nothing about Ratcliffe in any case | ✘ 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}}. |
However the redirect is reasonable as this is clearly someone who gets a mention regarding a-ha and is borderline notable. Although the above assessment covers what is in the page, there could be more secondary sources on him. However the name is quite common and searching is complicated by finding other notable Jonh Ratcliffes. I was not able to find any suitable coverage, but if multiple independent reliable secondary sources with sigificant coverage can be found, then, of course, this would be a notable subject for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to a-ha: Not enough notability outside of a-ha to warrant an individual page. InDimensional (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to a-ha. I haven't been able to find sources to support WP:GNG beyond those mentioned here, and none of those support a stand-alone article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
383 Commando Petroleum Troop RLC
- 383 Commando Petroleum Troop RLC (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)
In my opinion, the article is not notable. Similiar units almost certainly would not have an article. Only one reference is listed and it is not independent of the topic of the article. PercyPigUK (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Commando Logistic Regiment. Non-notable (and tiny!) military unit. Various sources note that the unit exists, but nothing to demonstrate independent notability from the parent formation. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment There's actually quite a bit of coverage of this unit in works discussing the role of the Commando Logistic Regiment during the Falklands War - please see this Google Books review: [8]. This book in particular discusses the troop and its role, as the decision to not mobilise it for the war was a significant mistake in the author's opinion. @Hawkeye7: do you have a view here based on the article you developed on logistics in the Falklands War? Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Commando Logistic Regiment, since the article contains nothing that is not in that parent article, without prejudice to its re-creation at a later date if more material becomes available. I did mention the unit in British logistics in the Falklands War, but as Nick-D notes, it did not deploy. Badsey and Privratsky discuss the problems that arose as a result of this, so secondary sources are available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Commando Logistic Regiment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
29 Armoured Engineer Squadron
- 29 Armoured Engineer Squadron (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)
In my opinion, the article is not notable. Similiar units almost certainly would not have an article. Only one reference is listed and it is not independent of the topic of the article.. PercyPigUK (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I was going to vote to redirect this to the parent unit, but I'm really not sure what that unit actually is. It most recently seems to have been part of 35 Engineer Regiment but our article doesn't record that as currently being the case. Anyone know what the most suitable redirect is? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Jack Parsons (producer)
- Jack Parsons (producer) (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 only has a single source, not enough for notability. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Night Hawk (comics)
- Night Hawk (comics) (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 initially WP:PRODed this article with the following rationale: "Non-notable fictional character. None of the current references are reliable, secondary sources. Searches just turned up very trivial mentions - no significant coverage in reliable sources." It was later de-prodded, with the suggestion that a full discussion should be held due to the subject being a pre-internet subject, so I am bringing it to AFD. To give further details on my WP:BEFORE results, the only results I was able to find in actual reliable sources were extremely brief, usually just a sentence or two stating "An early example of this kind of character was Night Hawk" and that's about it, such as these two books. Rorshacma (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and United Kingdom. Rorshacma (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- A redirect/merge to the The Nelson Lee Library seems more sensible than deletion. I'm assuming you've checked the physical media covering British story papers, like Book & Magazine Collector, Boys Will Be Boys, etc., etc. rather than just using Google. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Couldn't find WP:SIGCOV. Would support a redirect if people can agree on a valid target. But it's an unlikely search term and deletion is also fine. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to The Nelson Lee Library, agreeing with BoomboxTestarossa. We do have the mentioned secondary sources, which should count for something, but does not seem enough to be to establish stand-alone notability (I cannot see The British Superhero, p. 41, myself). So merge as WP:AtD. Daranios (talk)
- Merge to The Nelson Lee Library as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
William James Crawford
- William James Crawford (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)
Unref article, and I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:BIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Photography, Football, Rugby union, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I see some of his works online, but I don't see anything to suggest notability. Govvy (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Unreffed, fails WP:BIO. Anwegmann (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Schwein
- Schwein (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)
Relisting as previous nomination did not attract any comment and soft deletion was not applicable. Non-notable band that only lasted one year; no sources found in English or German. Sources in Japanese linked on the page do not show WP:SIGCOV. Broc (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Japan, Germany, and United Kingdom. Broc (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I believe the article should stay up. Per v, point 6, the group consists of several independently notable musicians. Weiqwbo (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per comment above, but also if only because having this content in each of the individual artist pages would be redundant (which is probably the point of Wikipedia:Notability (music) #6) -- t_kiehne (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Mehmet Abbasoğlu (businessman)
- Mehmet Abbasoğlu (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG or relevant specefic criteia. Not enough independent significant coverage.
- Source 1: Petrol Ofisi reached a market share of 23.09 percent (translated), Reliable? Unknown (likely), Independent? Yes, Significant coverage? No
- Source 2:Petrol Ofisi CEO Abbasoğlu: Our only bottleneck is our roads (translated) Reliable? Not likely, Significant coverage? No (Routine coverage of a conference, only quotes the CEO's statement)
- 3:Petrol Ofisi Group accelerates investments in line with Turkey's national energy strategy, Reliable? Not likely (State-run), Significant coverage? No (About company announcements, not the subject of the article)
- 4:Vitol-owned Petrol Ofisi agrees to purchase BP’s Turkish fuel operations, Reliable? Unknown, Independent? No (Publisher owns the company), Significant coverage? No (One-line mention)
- 5:404-error
- 6:Turkey’s Petrol Ofisi announces new chief executive officer, Reliable? No (Likely an advertisement), Independent? No (Likely an advertisement, no bylines, promotional tone, likely WP:RSNOI applies), Significant coverage? No (Mainly discusses company position changes, not the subject)
- 7:Change of general manager at Petrol Ofisi, Press release citing company statement
- 8:How A Gritty Market Leader Transformed Out Of A ‘Doomed’ Industry, Forbes contributor promo, not reliable by itself, further it's mostly an interview so primary source
- 9:Mehmet Abbasoğlu became the General Manager of Petrol Ofisi, similar to source 7, Press release citing a company statement
- Sources 10-16, more of the same. Waste of time and energy detailing here.
X (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Excluding the material from Forbes and sources where the person is an employee or director, the references seem fine. These are all valid references for a corporate executive. Newspaper articles aren't press releases; while a company announcement may be the starting point for a newspaper story about an executive appointment, the newspaper makes its own decisions about whether the announcement is newsworthy and what to include. Anadolu Agency is a legitimate news agency despite being state-run, although some caution is needed when considering its coverage of politics. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found in article or BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, routine mill news based on press releases, mentions, etc do not meet WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Petrol Ofisi. The only source with significant coverage is the WP:FORBESCON piece, which is not RS. The reliable sources are routine announcements of his appointment as CEO. No notability independent of the company, hence redirect. Jfire (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The creator essentially only edits articles about Turkish businessmen, which leads me to think that his editing scope is too narrow to understand what is encyclopedic. That's the charitable POV. In full, there is just insignifcant coverage in reliable sources. Every one of the thousands of business person who has any head for marketing will get press releases published in small business journals, but that does not make them notable. For the record, Forbes is a shell of its former glory. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
List of programs broadcast by Hum Europe
- List of programs broadcast by Hum Europe (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 is a simple listing without contextual information and falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. The few references available are about individual programming and not the programming as a whole. Fails WP:NLIST. CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, Pakistan, Europe, and United Kingdom. CNMall41 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete This channel seems to be an international service mostly consisting of Pakistani shows that are not specific to it. No original programming, no list. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I'm generally agree of it per WP:RS & WP:GNG for CNMall41 and Sammi Brie. Although the references are few, this is similar to Hum TV but this article is a broadcast coverage from Pakistan. Not original programming and no specific list occurs. HurricaneErl 2022 (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Lack of original programming & WP:GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, including the lack of specific materials or sources per WP:SIGCOV. HurricaneErl 2022 (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Representative of the UNHCR and WFP, London
- Representative of the UNHCR and WFP, 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)
Contested PROD of an individual office of the UNHCR. Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. Zero secondary sources, only source is government listing of diplomatic missions. AusLondonder (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge or redirect. Repeating the reason I gave for deprodding this: "This should be (merged and) redirected somewhere. Possibly List of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom#International organisations but a page about the UNHCR/WFP representatives would be better if there is one". Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't agree there's anything particularly useful to merge. I really doubt many readers already on Wikipedia are going to be searching "Representative of the UNHCR and WFP, London" to get to a list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- They won't be using this title to find a list of diplomatic missions in London, but they will be using this title to find the content we have about this topic that is located at the list page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- A redirect is effectively from a search term, other than incoming links (which mostly seem to be from the diplomatic missions in London template). I'm questioning who will be using such a specific, lengthy search term. I think it's a very implausible search term. If they forget to add WFP when searching, they'll get nowhere but if they include WFP there's a redirect? That's so arbitrary and unnecessary. Keep in mind that prior to the PROD and AfD, the page was struggling to get a single view a day. AusLondonder (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- They won't be using this title to find a list of diplomatic missions in London, but they will be using this title to find the content we have about this topic that is located at the list page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't agree there's anything particularly useful to merge. I really doubt many readers already on Wikipedia are going to be searching "Representative of the UNHCR and WFP, London" to get to a list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete article merely confirms it exists, fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Office of the World Bank, London
- Office of the World Bank, 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)
Contested PROD of an individual office of the World Bank. No other office has its own page. Clearly fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge or redirect which is what I said should happen when I deprodded this. I'm just not certain what the best target is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- If the proposer of a merge or redirect cannot identify a target, that's a rather significant problem. You deprodded the article but failed to suggest a credible alternative to deletion. In that case, the article should be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Montserrat–United Kingdom relations
- Montserrat–United Kingdom relations (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)
Despite the title the article is primarily about the representative office of Montserrat in London. Lacking secondary sources to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The current article is poor, but I'm certain that the topic is notable: after all, we're talking about the relations of the United Kingdom with one of its overseas territories! There should be some space somewhere for encyclopedic coverage of how the central government of the United Kingdom relates to (the government of) one of its overseas territories.
- At the back of my mind, a history section could be easily constructed from existing content at Montserrat. From a Geography class case study in my school days, I remember the UK government's donations to Montserrat following its volcanic eruption received quite some coverage. Also, this (non-independent) webpage from the UK Government can point to other important events or episodes worth mentioning.
- Nonetheless, three concerns prevent me from !voting Keep:
- Firstly, would any such article simply be a WP:COATRACK? We would need to find some reliable, independent sources that discuss the topic qua topic, rather than a miscellany of "here's how the UK and Montserrat interact with each other".
- Secondly, I notice other BOTs don't seem to have a "BOT–United Kingdom relations" article (cf. Foreign relations of the Falkland Islands redirects to British Overseas Territories#Foreign affairs; Foreign relations of Bermuda redirects to Bermuda#International relations. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign relations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, closed as Delete in March 2015).
- Finally, I'm not convinced this is the best article title for the topic. It suggests that Montserrat is a sovereign state, rather than a self-governing territory, and that feels odd to me. And while I'd happily support a redirect or merge as a WP:ATD, I can't find any appropriate target.
- So, my instinct is that there is a notable topic here, but the current article doesn't do it justice, and I don't think the article title does either. I'm not sure if the topic merits a standalone article, and there's no obvious alternative to deletion. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Move to Representative of Montserrat, London as is the case for other British Overseas Territories Dn9ahx (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Many of those other representative office articles have been deleted, others are at AfD now. AusLondonder (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Tuvalu House
- Tuvalu House (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)
An honorary consulate located in a residential house. No suitable secondary sources, only sources are a government diplomatic list and Embassypages.com. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Foreign relations of Tuvalu, where most of the encyclopaedic information already is, or List of diplomatic missions in London, which is probably a better destination for someone searching for this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Embassy of the United Kingdom, Pristina
- Embassy of the United Kingdom, Pristina (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)
Lacking in-depth coverage in secondary sources specifically about the embassy. Sources are primary sources, deprecated sources and Twitter. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Kosovo, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Kosovo-United Kingdom relations, which I'm surprised doesn't contain this useful information. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Consulate General of the United Kingdom, Osaka
- Consulate General of the United Kingdom, Osaka (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)
Consular office lacking sufficient secondary sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Japan, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or merge'. There is plenty of encyclopaedic information in this article that shouldn't be just thrown away. If additional secondary sources can't be found (remember some are likely to be in Japanese and/or predate Google) then it should be merged to a broader article, maybe Japan-United Kingdom relations. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Fails GNG and WP:ORG. Any relevant material should be in Japan–United Kingdom relations. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)- Merge with Japan–United Kingdom relations. Not enough notability for a full page. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
High Commission of Antigua and Barbuda, London
- High Commission of Antigua and Barbuda, 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:GNG. No secondary sources; sole source is a government list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and Antigua and Barbuda. AusLondonder (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London, which contains most of the same information so is more helpful to readers than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Representative of Anguilla, London
- Representative of Anguilla, 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)
Contested PROD. No sources at all other than a listing of diplomatic missions in London. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete No third party coverage to meet GNG. Article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#British Overseas Territories. That already contains the address so there is nothing to merge, but given the list does exist there is no benefit in deletion over redirection. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe a redirect is necessary here, this is not a very plausible search term. AusLondonder (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I firmly disagree, we have content about this topic so it benefits us to make that content easy to find. If the topic was notable enough for an article it would be at this title, so this is a search term people will likely use to find it, and the presence of the redirect will discourage recreation of an article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe a redirect is necessary here, this is not a very plausible search term. AusLondonder (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Embassy of East Timor, London
- Embassy of East Timor, 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)
One sentence-stub that completely fails WP:GNG. Sole source is a government list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:ORG. Article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I see nothing to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London. Not notable enough for an article but notable enough for a list entry and redirecting to that is better for readers. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on redirecting this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 06:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Holderness museums
- Holderness museums (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)
Unclear what this article is even about. Mentions one small archive, without a claim to notability, shared across the 3 museums that aren't otherwise tied together. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, History, and United Kingdom. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. This BBC reference explains the oral history project. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Its a project or scheme to record oral histories. Its not encyclopaedic. I searched and looked for sources but there's nothing I can find. Desertarun (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
James Dring
- James Dring (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 requested, but denied for being Grammy nominated. However, WP:ANYBIO requires winning once, or being nominated multiple times. Is twice good enough? I read multiple as something greater than two. So, fails ANYBIO. Even more, none of the references pass WP:SIRS, so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Sources are database entries and press releases. No significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete — to add to what UtherSRG said, he was nominated for one Grammy, not two, together with four other people. Also, the article is by a banned sockpuppet and paid editor, which we shouldn’t reward. — Biruitorul Talk 18:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment As per this link [9], as well as the Grammy nomination, he has been nominated for a Golden Globe. Also - clearly WP:MUSICBIO applies here. ResonantDistortion 19:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep With named nominations for
twothree notable awards, that is sufficient to meet WP:MUSICBIO#8. There's also sufficient WP:RS to show the subject meets WP:COMPOSER#1. I have cleaned up the article including removing non-RS citations and adding several more, which may not be multiple lines in depth but do contribute per WP:BASIC, so any "whiff" of paid editor contribution no longer applies. ResonantDistortion 23:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment per the Billboard reference just added to the article - Dring was a named credit in the nomination of the Feel Good Inc. Grammy award. So he does have two Grammy nominations, plus the Golden Globe; I've updated my !vote. ResonantDistortion 15:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Per ResonantDistortion. X (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Subject specific guidelines are for guidance only - every topic has to meet WP:GNG when WP:AFD is invoked. It seems unlikely that we will find WP:SIGCOV about him. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. 2A02:AB88:4C01:7500:84E:6485:B66C:DC73 (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete also per WP:NOTINHERITED. Article is rife with the requisite heavy namedropping and coattailing (Jamie T in particular) in attempt to cover for lack of individual notability and weak press-release sourcing. Being nominated just once for a soundtrack song all the way back in 2010, signing an agreement, and his recent production for an unknown indie artist (Terra Twin) aren't enough for SIGCOV. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 00:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- (1) "all the way back in 2010" The date of the Grammy nomination is irrelevant as per WP:NTEMP, (2) Dring has been a Grammy nominee twice not once, the first in 2005, which is verified by a RS in the article, (3) The reason the article is "rife with the requisite heavy namedropping" is because the subject has made credited and verified contributions to a number of notable works, (4) two credited grammy nominations does rather indicate that notability by association does not apply, and (5) There are c. 14 words devoted to Jamie T, which does not appear undue, given that, for example, on the album Trick "sees Jamie T play all instruments alongside longterm collaborator James Dring" ([10]). I know I am probably repeating myself, but WP:BASIC, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER all apply. ResonantDistortion 07:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO and fails WP:GNG. Can’t find independent reliable sources giving significant coverage. Contributor892z (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Sylvan Anderton
- Sylvan Anderton (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)
sportsperson stub. fails general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Kingdom. ltbdl (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – The player appears to have a substantial number of appearances for Reading and Chelsea. I think it's a matter of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - clearly notable. Over 200 appearances in England's professional football league (verified by the Neil Brown source in the article sas well as sources like this), while a quick Google search brings up things like this and this which clearly indicate historical (read: offline) coverage. A lazy nomination. GiantSnowman 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- are those football cards? ltbdl (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- ...yes? GiantSnowman 07:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- football cards aren't reliable sources ltbdl (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Has that ever been decided? I'd think if it were by a reputable company it would be reliable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- that's crazy ltbdl (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Football cards being reliable sources made me literally laugh out loud. AusLondonder (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't a reputable card company be reliable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- amazing. 10/10. no notes. ltbdl (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- ? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- At no point have I claimed that football cards are reliable. I was merely suggesting that appearing on football cards - and, if you had bothered to Google him, all the other historical coverage at photo archives etc. - suggests there is coverage out there, which research by others below has supported. GiantSnowman 18:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- ? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- amazing. 10/10. no notes. ltbdl (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't a reputable card company be reliable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Football cards being reliable sources made me literally laugh out loud. AusLondonder (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- that's crazy ltbdl (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Has that ever been decided? I'd think if it were by a reputable company it would be reliable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- football cards aren't reliable sources ltbdl (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- ...yes? GiantSnowman 07:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- are those football cards? ltbdl (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep With the amount of games he played and the clubs he played for seems good enough, combined with GS sources above and probably much more WP:OFFLINESOURCES, this needs improvement for sure. Govvy (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep More than 200 professional appearances for teams with deep, deep histories and legacies. This is very obvious. Clearly notable. Anwegmann (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Fails GNG and lacks SIGCOV. An actual check of the newspapers.com archive finds nothing but mentions in match reports/transfer stories. He went on to play cricket for Bryant Rose Cricket Club and won the raffle four years in a row there but that is trivial stuff. NFOOTBALL has been depreciated since 2022 so any Keeps based on number of games played must be ignored by the closer. He isn't notable either for playing for some "notable" clubs per NOTINHERITED. Dougal18 (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I frequently see editors citing Wikipedia:But there must be sources! in AfDs for footballers with dozens of international caps. I'd like to see the same standard applied to footballers with "over 200 appearances in England's professional football league". How do football cards indicate offline coverage, @GiantSnowman:? As Dougal18 points out so far it has not been demonstrated that SIGCOV exists. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Mostly per Dougal18's reasoning. Footballers are not inherently notable - they need to meet WP:GNG. This is clear community consensus. Simply asserting that an individual played for notable teams is not a suitable AfD argument. If nothing can be found in newspaper archives, then he's not notable. Another point is this is little more than an infobox and a pseudo-biography. AusLondonder (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- There seems to be a decent amount of newspaper coverage, although it is mostly brief-ish: see [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. An argument could be made for WP:NBASIC, considering he seemed to have significant amount of appearances for prominent clubs. Not sure if that changes anyone's views: @Ltbdl, AusLondonder, Dougal18, and Robby.is.on:? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, per Dougal and AusLondoner. Football cards do not contribute to notability at all, and given passing mentions in match reports don't count towards even BASIC for modern players they shouldn't count for old players either. We don't have a single piece of the required IRS SIGCOV, so we have no valid justification for retaining this article. JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment He also has a biographical entry in Chelsea The Complete Record: author: Rick Glanvill isbn: 9781909245303 also mentioned in The Little Book of Reading FC - 1920-2008 author: Alan Sedunary isbn: 9781780913711. There maybe more books with biographical information. Govvy (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Glanvill is Chelsea's official historian, he is not an independent source. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reply @JoelleJay: That's not correct, nor is it proper to discredit him. Will you do the same for Historians who went to Oxford and Cambridge and write about those subjects? He is a published author and a reputable one at that. Please don't use this argument ever again on any credited club historian. Govvy (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- He's literally hired by the club to write about club history. Of course he isn't independent. And if a historian is employed by Oxford to write about Oxford history then they aren't independent either. JoelleJay (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @JoelleJay: Again you really have no idea, the Chelsea book is independent to the club, published by De Coubertin Books
deCoubertin Books is a leading independent publisher, which publishes outstanding non-fiction titles predicated on high editorial and production values. We work with some of the biggest names in sport and sportswriting and our books have been nominated for numerous awards.
Being hired by a club doesn't make the book published by the club. Also the link provided says he is the club historian, because he is the top of his field in the history for the club, at no time does that post on the Chelsea page say he is hired directly for them. The Reading book is published by Breedon Books Publishing Co Ltd and not Reading Football Club. These are both independent publishers to the clubs. I really don't understand why you feel these are primary sources when they are not remotely so. Govvy (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)- Being an employee of the club (
He has worked for all Chelsea FC's publications and media since 1993 and is the club's official historian.
) means the person has a COI with the club, and this applies to material the person publishes through independent publishers (and obviously anything authored by the club would go through an external publisher; it's not like each club has its own book publishing house; the "Official Biography" of Chelsea that hepenned ... for the club
is through Headline Publishing Group). We'd consider a book authored by a relative of the subject to be non-independent regardless of where it's published; the same applies here. And what part of "the club's official historian", as recorded on the club's website, makes you think he's not working directly for them.....
I didn't say anything about primary sources. I said they are non-independent. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Being an employee of the club (
- @JoelleJay: Again you really have no idea, the Chelsea book is independent to the club, published by De Coubertin Books
- He's literally hired by the club to write about club history. Of course he isn't independent. And if a historian is employed by Oxford to write about Oxford history then they aren't independent either. JoelleJay (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reply @JoelleJay: That's not correct, nor is it proper to discredit him. Will you do the same for Historians who went to Oxford and Cambridge and write about those subjects? He is a published author and a reputable one at that. Please don't use this argument ever again on any credited club historian. Govvy (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Glanvill is Chelsea's official historian, he is not an independent source. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Sports cards are reliable sources stat-wise.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – For the arguments presented so far in the discussion. I see no reason to discredit a club historian, or sports cards, considering that the athlete played in the 50s and 60s. The sources presented by @Govvy demonstrate credibility. Svartner (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Credibility of who? Dougal18 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The authors of mentioned books. Svartner (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- So employees of the football club are somehow exempted from the NSPORT guidance saying
Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players
if they don't publish directly on the website?
The sports cards are completely trivial stats coverage. Why would they count? JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- So employees of the football club are somehow exempted from the NSPORT guidance saying
- The authors of mentioned books. Svartner (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Credibility of who? Dougal18 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The delete arguments seem a bit WP:IDONTLIKEIT, in their attempts to discredit what seems like reasonable coverage. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Switch Scotland
- Switch 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)
This article about a digital radio multiplex has been tagged for notability since 2012 and I'm unable to find much in the way of SIGCOV to assert notability - just articles about stations opening and closing on the multiplex signal, which are primarily about the stations and not the multiplex. There is !precedent for redirecting these articles to the article for their parent company [18]. Most of this article consists of unsourced WP:OR about stations being added, deleted and moved around on various digital radio multiplexes. Flip Format (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Flip Format (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Arboricultural Association
- Arboricultural Association (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 seem to be notable. A search does not reveal any non-trivial coverage of the subject. The only source in the article is primary (the organization's website). XabqEfdg (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. XabqEfdg (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Biology. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Its journal Arboricultural Journal: International Journal of Urban Forestry (formerly Arboricultural Association Journal) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q96326792 is indexed in Scopus. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep when you are the authoritative body in a niche sector there’s a bit of a notability conundrum - all the learned and professional papers are published by you, all the spokespeople are on your board, and pretty much everything connected with the topic is associated with you in some way. Nevertheless I find 1, multiple references in Horticulture Week, and they are the publishers of the scholarly journal of their discipline. Mccapra (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Mccapra. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Maan Abu Taleb
- Maan Abu Taleb (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)
Took a look at this article at the suggestion of another editor who suggested a delete nom. After reviewing it, I'm gonna agree with him. The only sources I can find of this guy are, a Vice interview (not enough) and coverage of his magazine (sexual misconduct allegations, mostly) The magazine he founded, Ma3azef, may have a case for notability despite being a redlink, but this is not WP:INHERITED (and additionally, fails WP:AUTHOR 3.). Then there is the matter of his book, the english translation of the book seems to have gotten no coverage whatsoever and frankly, the fact that it was only longlisted for a rather niche prize (the Banipal, which is awarded to english translations of Arabic books), seems to only strengthen the case here. Given that this article has had this sourcing issue for at least four years, it seems to suggest that nobody else can find sources either. Hence, this likely fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR/WP:NEDITOR. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Jordan, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Numerous and diverse secondary sources emerge on a Google search. The English translation of his first novel was published by an academic press, and it appears he's active in the Arabic diaspora. I assess that the subject is notable and the page is marked as stub quality for lack of volunteer editors contributing to expand it. I've done some work and will add more soon. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- User:Allan Nonymous, when you took a look at the article - did you look at the subject's Wikidata item, which was created back in 2019. In particular, on 13 December 2020 a contributor added the Google Knowledge Graph ID which has a wide amount of interesting information available at a click and waiting for further editing of the page by future volunteer editors (such as myself). Basing your judgment on the content of a stub page is a weak argument, and I write this as a Good Faith editor with a lot of work in Wikidata under my belt. In evaluating a page to nominate as AfD's, this would be my advice. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Deborahjay that article is made of paper, the numerous sources are only 2, I can't believe it when my Noam Bettan article had 22 sources. Furthermore, the first is an autobiography of a blog, if the article does not make it relevant, it lacks too much content for it to remain here, it seems like a mirror article, that article could very well be on another free website where it does not matter. ask for too much information like in FANDOM. Acartonadooopo (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Sock comment struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)- Reply: Acartonadooopo, you fail to show understanding of Wikipedia guidelines relevant to new page creators: notability, biographies of living people, reliable sources, stub article. Your 22 sources for the Noam Bettan page were from Israeli popular music platforms and websites, not mainstream media. I found them inadequate and agreed with the Deletion recommendation. This page you've proposed for deletion is a stub for notable person, an author with listings in the US Library of Congress and the National Library of Israel (and Canada, Japan and others, besides his ID included in the Virtual International Authority File. This is evinced by his Wikidata item. Considering how little experience you have in the EN WP, it's not too soon for you to learn the consensus on best practices of this collaborative effort before you criticize from your own point of view. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I don't think we have notability. I can't find book reviews and this is the only RS [19], but it's more of an interview. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Maybe a redirect to the red-linked magazine he founded, the Ma3azef, might work. There's some coverage around that. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would agree, that's why I mentioned it as an option given that Ma3azef is probably notable. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment it has come to my attention that the user here who suggested the nom was a sock. I have struck the portion of the comment referring to him, but I think the nom is still sound here (despite the rather unsavory way this was brought to my attention).
- Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 12:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Henry Hereford
- Henry Hereford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about an actor, and added a reference to his employer's website; but cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources, and do not think he meets WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)- Not an article for deletion - definitely meets the criteria for actor. Multiple credits in major film and tv shows. 2600:1700:4640:E70:ECCA:5D5:421E:ECB4 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by "employer". Henry is an established actor having been on several films and TV shows as referenced in IMDB and trade magazines. There is no reason this page would be deleted. Thefilmsorcerer (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)- Delete Fails GNG or NACTOR. A 21st-century actor and yet yields no results in Google News tells a lot. General searches also did not produce anything of use. Other than 1-2, the used refs aren't about him rather the films/shows he's starred in. X (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004
- Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As far as I can tell, this law has virtually no coverage anywhere. Fails WP:GNG completely. Only references are primary sources. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 14:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. The Act, also called CAICE, has significant coverage in many books and periodical articles in Google Books, Google Scholar, Internet Archive and HeinOnline. There is significant commentary on the Act in Halsbury's Statutes and Current Law Statutes [20]. That commentary, some of which is already cited in the article, is certainly an independent secondary source. This Act is, amongst other things, the law relating to community interest companies (CICs), which law is Part 2 of this Act, and the same thing as this Act. Accordingly, there are entire books about this Act: [21] ("Law . . . of Community Interest Companies"), and many entire periodical articles about this Act. James500 (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- None of the citations cover this specific act, they only seem to cover the more general field Community Interest Companies and seem to only mention this act in passing as a source for some of the information about the field. WP:GNG requires coverage, not citation. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Halsbury and Current Law are entirely about this Act, and they are a commentary on the Act. Likewise Bishop's book contains extensive commentary on the Act. An Act is not a source of information. An Act is the law. To use your terminology, the Act is "the field". Those sources, and the many other books are not just "citations". You might as well claim that a book review was "just a citation" of the book being reviewed. James500 (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps more importantly, both Halsbury and Current Law (and other sources) also include extensive commentary on Parts 1 and 3 of the Act, which have nothing to do with CICs. So this article is not redundant to the article on CICs. Even Part 2 of the Act is not completely redundant to the topic of CICs generally (at least as opposed to the law of CICs), since that topic includes all non-legal aspects of CICs (such as the companies themselves, statistical information about them, and the economic and social implications of them). Part 2 is independently notable of CICs generally when you consider the number of non-legal sources that discuss CICs. James500 (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- None of the citations cover this specific act, they only seem to cover the more general field Community Interest Companies and seem to only mention this act in passing as a source for some of the information about the field. WP:GNG requires coverage, not citation. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Victor Corkran
- Victor Corkran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of any notability. Being a member of the nobility does not equate to notability. Sources show that he lived , that he had a family and worked as a coutier to a minor royal and that he died, but nothing beyond that. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 08:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and United Kingdom. Velella Velella Talk 08:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, probably a thoroughly nice gentleman, but absolutely nothing to say about him, no sign of notability. Merely having a genealogy and existing as a courtier on the fringes of the UK's rather enormous royal family doesn't confer notability. Elemimele (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. A knighthood very clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Nobody with a confirmed knighthood has ever been deleted. He also has an obituary, albeit a short one, in a major national newspaper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not all knighthoods are equal. KCVO wasn't conferred as a significant honour for doing anything in particular, it was a knighthood given in recognition of service to the monarch, basically an automatic consequence of his job, a high-society version of receiving a carriage clock when you retired as a station-master. Anyone appointed equerry to Beatrice would have received this title, irrespective of what they did. We should therefore focus on whether the job is wikipedia-notable. Basically if we have nothing to say about an equerry except that they existed, it's hard to justify an article. In Corkran's case, even his obituary, which is contemporary and presumably written by someone with the information at their fingertips, struggles to say anything about him beyond that he went to school. In terms of deleting knights, we've converted consorts of monarchs to redirects based on the fact their notability, like Corkran's, is only inherited.
- It's also a very bad sign that the article is almost entirely genealogy, spending longer talking about his parents and offspring than it does about him himself. Elemimele (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Not all knighthoods are equal.
Indeed. KCVO is two levels above Knight Bachelor, the lowest level of knighthood! Essentially claiming it's not a real knighthood is purely your POV. Claiming his notability is inherited is patently ridiculous. He isn't notable for being married to someone notable; he received his knighthood for his achievements and service just like any other knight.Anyone appointed equerry to Beatrice would have received this title, irrespective of what they did.
No they wouldn't. He was her comptroller and treasurer, the head of her household, not just her equerry. Like it or not, these people held highly influential and notable positions in the United Kingdom, hence their knighthoods. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)- The relationship between levels of honours, and Wikipedia notability, is rather complicated. For example, a British Empire Medal is, in honours terms, one of the lowest, but it is never awarded as a retirement present, always for doing something fairly outstanding. It is often awarded to quite ordinary people who have made themselves extraordinary by their activities, which means it's often a sign of Wikipedia notability. An OBE or MBE, on the other hand, is higher, but is often given as a retirement present to senior civil figures, and therefore (sometimes) reflects merely that they had a certain job. As a sign of Wikipedia notability, it needs to be interpreted with context.
- Again, the whole system is coloured with an inclination to give an award at a level depending on the social status of the recipient (which isn't something we need to reflect in Wikipedia; we're interested in what the person did). So, for example, if a university professor or academic stands out from the crowd, he will get a MBE or OBE (for example Alison Mary Smith), while a research assistant in the same field (for example Anne Edwards (botanist)), if they stand out from the crowd (which is much less likely, harder to do, and more notable when it's achieved!), they will get a British Empire medal.
- In Corkran's case, of course he got a high grade of knighthood, because he was working with a high grade of nobility.
- My case against an article on Corkran is simply that we have no source whatsoever to say that he did anything whatsoever (except be an equerry who went to school). What's the point in an article? Elemimele (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is true that grades of honours often depended, and to an extent still depend, on grade of job (e.g. traditionally BEM for an NCO, MBE for a junior or warrant officer, OBE for a field officer, CBE for a colonel or brigadier, KBE for a general officer). However, it is also true that those who got higher honours were also far more prominent by the very nature of the grade of their job, so I don't think this is an especially valid argument. I think it is very hard to argue that anyone with an honour at the level of companion/commander or knight/dame is not notable. It is odd for Wikipedia to say that people are not notable when the British government considers they are; even though we are not bound by government decrees, it is simple common sense that anyone awarded this level of honour is notable in the real world and should therefore be considered notable by Wikipedia, which, for crying out loud, considers many teenage Youtubers to be notable just because they have a significant internet presence! For obvious reasons, Sir Victor did not have, but that does not mean he was not a notable person in his day and his field, which was royal administration. It is not our place to decide that one field of endeavour is less notable than another.
- Incidentally, he didn't get his KCVO as a "retirement present"; he was knighted six years before he retired and was awarded the CVO, which would also make him notable under ANYBIO, 22 years before that for being private secretary and comptroller of the household to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. And the BEM has very often been awarded as a "retirement present" after a long career of service just like any other honour; that doesn't, however, make it any less significant, as it does indeed recognise a long and distinguished career in the person's chosen field. We do not generally consider that a BEM (or MBE, OBE, RVM, MVO or LVO) meets ANYBIO simply because for the most part, with certain exceptions such as sportspeople, actors, TV presenters, etc, recipients are in careers or at grades where they do not tend to register on notability scales. That is not the case with CBEs or higher, as these are usually awarded to senior people who make a significant mark on society, even though they may not figure greatly on the internet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- On your User Page, you say "I do not believe that Wikipedia should feature articles about completely non-notable people". That is surely the case here: what did this person, today completely forgotten by everyone apart from relatives, do to make him notable? I would go for Delete. Athel cb (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Meaning ordinary people with no claim to notability. A KCVO, an entry in Who's Who and an obit in The Times are all claims to notability. No knight or recipient of a CVO is non-notable by definition. Why do you think people receive honours? For doing nothing notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep: definitely notable, has one source which makes it KEEP. I’m participating here because non living person’s article is being created here with an image royal family, with source I can’t find any reason why it should be deleted. AnkkAnkur (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)— AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Plus they're a sock. Girth Summit (blether) 12:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)- Delete WP:ANYBIO does not override GNG: "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The sourcing demonstrates trivial mentions, not significant coverage. Take this "Morning's Gossip" from the Daily Mirror for example. The entirety of the relevant part of this source is one sentence "Mr Victor Cochrane has arrived at Osborne Cottage in attendance on the Princess" this is plainly not the sourcing required to demonstrate notability. Simply being a servant to a British royal does not mean you inherit notability. AusLondonder (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Once again, WP:INHERITED does not apply (and note it's only an essay in any case). He is not notable for anything inherited from anyone else but for the achievements that gave him a CVO and then a KCVO, which are only awarded to people who are already notable. I do wish people would stop citing the wrong thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- If that's the case that these awards are only awarded to "already notable" people rather than favourite servants then we need to see the GNG-level coverage to prove that. I will happily change my mind if I see something better than one line mentions in gossip columns. AusLondonder (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I entirely agree that there unfortunately isn't much coverage (maybe if the internet had been around when he was alive there would have been a lot more!), but I also can't believe that anyone could seriously claim that someone with a CVO and KCVO (awarded in his case for holding two entirely different posts, incidentally; the CVO was awarded to him before he was a courtier) was not notable. It should be self-evident that these high honours are not randomly distributed to nobodies for doing nothing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- If that's the case that these awards are only awarded to "already notable" people rather than favourite servants then we need to see the GNG-level coverage to prove that. I will happily change my mind if I see something better than one line mentions in gossip columns. AusLondonder (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Once again, WP:INHERITED does not apply (and note it's only an essay in any case). He is not notable for anything inherited from anyone else but for the achievements that gave him a CVO and then a KCVO, which are only awarded to people who are already notable. I do wish people would stop citing the wrong thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep ordraftify - Look, we're doing this wrong, and on the face of it the nom. has a point. The page has already improved since the nomination, but it is not a clear WP:HEY because the sources being used are primary sources. If your project is the history of Corkran, this would be a great start. But we are not writing histories, we are writing an encyclopaedia, and you need to find the secondary sources that already exist and build the page from there. Writing a page from primary sources is original research. You are doing history, not an encyclopaedia. Where are these secondary sources? I don't know. I don't see them, and I did not find them in initial searches. And for that reason this should be a delete. Publish the history and you can definitely have a page, but until someone does that, this is pretty iffy. But here's why I am making a weak case to keep this article: because this is a subject that might well elicit history articles - perhaps has already done so. There is certainly plenty in primary sources, and the shortcuts to assess notability (has a knighthood) are far from perfect, but not irrelevant. And if this were the state of the page after months of work, I would be searching hard for a redirect target at this point, on the basis that searches have failed. But, in fact, this page is week old and was nominated less than a day after it was started. No discussion on the talk page. WP:DEMOLISH applies. If I had my way, I would want this closed as "no consensus" to give the page creator a couple of months to knock this into shape before it can be renominated. Perhaps I should bold "draftify" instead (ETA, I bolded both), but ultimately it is a historical subject, a figure that we certainly might expect to see treated by historians (if not thoroughly nor directly) and a darn sight more likely to be notable than a lot of pages that we seem to want to keep. Keep iit or draftify it, but don't delete it. At least, not until we can see the final shape of it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)- I thought about this some more and in the light of Rupples' additional comments, I don't think I can justify keep. But my comments about DEMOLISH remain, and think we should draftify this. That is not merely backdoor deletion. It gives the creator a chance to develop this with secondary sources if any exist, and if they don't, it gives them an easy route to transfer some content to Princess Beatrice as appropriate. It is a new page, and draft space is meant for such incubation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Some thoughtful arguments put forward for both keep and delete. My search found lots of mentions in newspapers stating he accompanied notable people at events plus notices of his marriage. There's also newspaper obituaries, basically stating positions held. No entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography though, which to my mind weighs against notabilty despite the honours received. I also note that Corkran despite serving Princess Beatrice for 25 years isn't mentioned in that featured article, slightly strange, but not a determining factor. Overall neutral, although the article content, which is a list of roles and wikilinked name-drops does leave some doubt as to whether notability has or can be established. Rupples (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note that only a small minority of people have entries in the DNB. The vast majority of people we have articles on do not. The vast majority of people with knighthoods do not. He does, of course, have an entry in Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- You must know that WP:WHOSWHO is a deprecated source and does not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's been deprecated as a source for information because its entries are self-authored (although it is fair to say that most of its entries are accurate, so this is probably a little unfair). However, as you must know, that is separate from establishing notability, since those included are selected by its staff on the basis of their notability and neither apply nor pay to be included. Almost all people with honours at this level are included. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- You must know that WP:WHOSWHO is a deprecated source and does not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note that only a small minority of people have entries in the DNB. The vast majority of people we have articles on do not. The vast majority of people with knighthoods do not. He does, of course, have an entry in Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Further comment. I would have thought Corkran would at least be mentioned in this book, given the length of his service to Princess Beatrice: The Shy Princess: The Life of Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice, the Youngest Daughter and Constant Companion of Queen Victoria by David Duff [22]. A search of the copy on Internet Archive, has no mention of him in this biography, which surely adds to doubts over Corkran's notability. Rupples (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yep this demonstrates again that he simply wasn't a notable individual, even in his time. Knighthoods are routinely awarded to royal aides and that does not mean they get a notability free pass. AusLondonder (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. We have zero PAG-based justification for this topic being a standalone article other than the debunked assertion that simply receiving some honor corresponds to coverage sufficient to meet N. Zero IRS SIGCOV sources have been identified, and obviously being "selected" for inclusion in an unreliable source counts for absolutely nothing. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- You do know it hasn't been "debunked"? Some would like it to be, but it hasn't been.
obviously being "selected" for inclusion in an unreliable source counts for absolutely nothing
. Yup, obviously someone else who hasn't actually bothered to take in what they're citing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)- You admitted recently that you feel that the part of ANYBIO that states "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" is "utterly extraneous". That's unfortunately not how policy or the English language works. AusLondonder (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- You do know it hasn't been "debunked"? Some would like it to be, but it hasn't been.
- Has the British Newspaper Archive been checked? I can check tomorrow if this is not already closed by then. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral between keep and delete. I don't see an obvious AtD. I'm taking into account both the guidance on honours in WP:ANYBIO and the lack of indepth coverage, which means the subject probably doesn't satisfy the GNG. I also note that satisfying WP:NBIO#Additional criteria
does not guarantee that a subject should be included
. Rupples (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC) - Keep. In addition to the pass of WP:ANYBIO (which needs to hold some weight), the decent expansion of the article proves that Corkran passes WP:NBASIC, which states that
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability
– the many mentions of him and coverage across years of his life, as well as the nation-wide coverage of his death (some of which has some depth and could be considered sigcov imo, e.g. [23]), proves that this satisfies it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Monsters (2004 film)
- Monsters (2004 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unsourced article about a short film. The attempted notability claim here is that it won an award at a minor film festival, but WP:NFILM does not just indiscriminately accept every single film festival award on earth as a notability-locking award -- that only goes to major internationally prominent film festivals such as Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto or Sundance whose awards get broadly reported by the media as news, because even the award itself has to meet the notability criteria for awards before it can make its winners notable for winning it. But the award claim here is unsourced, and the article isn't citing any other sources for anything else either. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete:I can't find anything. It's entirely possible that there are sources that aren't online, but I can't really find anything to firmly argue that either. That leaves us with the sole claim of this winning an award at BUFF. I would argue that the award would give the film some notability, just not enough to keep on that basis alone. BUFF is a notable film festival, but not notable or major enough to be on the level that is expected of the award criteria for NFILM. It's not a slam against BUFF - most film festivals aren't at that level. If someone can produce a couple of good sources (as well as one for the award) then I'm open to changing my opinion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 15:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)- Keep. There are reviews from The Guardian and Film Threat [24] [25]. Although both of the other sources are direct interviews, the Film Threat source goes into detail about the film's reception and what the director feels he should change if he had the chance to retake the film. What do you think about the new sourcing @Bearcat: @ReaderofthePack:? DareshMohan (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's definitely on the right track, but I'd still need to see proper reliable sourcing (i.e. not the self-published website of the film's own distributor) for the award claims before I was prepared to withdraw this from discussion entirely — an award has to be one that gets covered by the media (i.e. passes GNG in its own right) in order to gain the privilege of making its winners notable for winning it, so award wins have to be sourced to media coverage to prove that the award is notable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Audience award at a film festival doesn't seem to meet film notability. The rest seems to be local coverage, of a hometown hero-type coverage. I don't see anything written about this short film otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Couldn't source the audience award. Sourced the other award based on [26]. @Oaktree b: @Bearcat: If two reviews (the Guardian one is a capsule review) doesn't add notability, then this article can be deleted. DareshMohan (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm striking my delete vote. I suppose if pressed I'd consider this a week keep based on the two reviews, but I'm not really satisfied enough to say that officially. Here's my argument as to why I removed the delete:
- So far, there's no definitive judgment based on review length. The reason why is that review length doesn't automatically mean that something is of good or bad quality. Every time someone tries, the argument centers back on one central point: what makes a review a review is that the journalist forms an opinion or judgment on the film, which can be done in just a few sentences. It doesn't help that there are lengthier reviews out there that tend to discuss general things (or navel gaze) for a few paragraphs, then use the final one to give the actual opinion/judgment. There's also the outlet to consider, because a capsule review from a nationally known paper like The Guardian is going to be more impressive than if my local paper, which has at most half the circulation of TG, were to review the same short film. It's not a knock against my local paper, just that the higher circulation means that TG is presumably going to be more discerning because they have a larger audience. (IE, more mainstream publications are more likely to focus on mainstream stuff whereas a smaller paper could review something off the wall because there's potentially less red tape and so on.)
- It's pretty rare that short films get reviews at all and when they do, the length is usually short because they're going to be watching it with a batch of other stuff at a film festival or packaged with a full-length movie. It's rare that a short film is the sole focus, because there's a bit of risk in covering short films.
- So my next focus then is whether or not the article will be anything other than a paragraph of content. I do see two interviews on there and while sure, they're primary, they can still be used to expand the article and give it at least somewhat more encyclopedic value. We could probably improve the production section to be more than a big quote and we could also add a release section. I see that it was given a re-release at a 2020 film festival, the Lyon Festival Hallucinations Collectives, so that's definitely something. I suppose that last bit could qualify as a bit of notability but one would need to find sourcing and honestly, I never feel comfortable arguing for a keep that way unless it's at a very notable festival or the institution holding the festival or retrospective are very notable. This is close, but it still feels pretty weak. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 15:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Is the director notable? A good alternative might be to create an article for the director and summarize this there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 15:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, he has an article: Robert Morgan (filmmaker). Maybe just summarize the release and production there? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 15:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I've greatly improved the article. It looks fairly proper now. I wouldn't mind this being kept. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, he has an article: Robert Morgan (filmmaker). Maybe just summarize the release and production there? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 15:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Is the director notable? A good alternative might be to create an article for the director and summarize this there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 15:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: All in all, coverage and nomination seem to show it might be notable. A redirect to the director seems warranted anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Others
Categories
Deletion reviews
Miscellaneous
Proposed deletions
- Higgledy House (via WP:PROD on 8 September 2023)
Redirects
Templates
See also
- Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom/Article alerts, a bot-maintained listing of a variety of changes affecting United Kingdom related pages including deletion discussions
England
Artists Anonymous Theatre Network
- Artists Anonymous Theatre Network (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 owner of the page has claimed this to be a historic no longer existing organisation and thus is outdated and irrelevant to information of the world wide web. due to its similarities with existing artist, the owner Alexander Parsonage has allowed for this deletion on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TazioLinse (talk • contribs) 15:51, 29 April 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 April 29. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 16:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Organizations, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
The Dalek Generation
- The Dalek Generation (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 WPNBOOK Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and England. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Touched by an Angel (novel)
- Touched by an Angel (novel) (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:NBOOK Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and England. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Shaun Squires
- Shaun Squires (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)
Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find much of anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Best thing that came up was three sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Undecided: Career lasted for quite a few years, got potential for expansion, but currently not sourced enough to remain on mainspace. Mn1548 (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, no significant coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Paul Melo e Castro
- Paul Melo e Castro (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)
Orphan article with no evidence of notability. Lecturer does not meet WP:PROF and an h-Index of 4 means the research output had little impact. Tried to find book reviews to see if the subject could meet WP:NAUTHOR but I was only able to find this one and I don't think it's enough to qualify for notability. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV as well. Contributor892z (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors. Contributor892z (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Max Baker-Hytch
- Max Baker-Hytch (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 Wikipedia:Notability (academics): (1) research does not have a significant impact (1 book recently published, no commentary on his work, less than 100 citations. (2) zero awards. (3) Not a member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. (4) Nothing to indicate that anyone is discussing this person's work, let alone "academic work has made a significant impact"! (5) Not a distinguished professor, a postdoc and a tutor. (6) did not hold a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post. (7) mentioned once BBC Dorset for playing in a band, which he does not have a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. (8) Not the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. Checking the basic criteria, the article is compiled from his work (WP:Primary + the section about "Ideas" is pure original research, e.g., "Baker-Hytch contends that mutual epistemic dependence is an essential mechanism for human acquisition of knowledge
with no citation. A few sentences later, there is a citation to a book that discusses the topic but not the person or the person's ideas. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This article satisfies the criteria for notability (academics). (1) His research has the significant impact. He has published numerous papers in various academic journals. In addition, he has the high rate of citations (more than 100 considering the rate of citations of all his papers). You may use Google Scholar carefully. (2) He received the British national award from the Research Councils UK. (3) He is a member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly institute. He is a fellow of the University of Oxford and member of the relevent associations at Oxford. (4) Many academic papers discuss his ideas. For example, DEBUNKING ARGUMENTS GAIN LITTLE FROM COGNITIVE SCIENCE OF RELIGION, Divine hiddenness, the demographics of theism, and mutual epistemic dependence: a response to Max Baker-Hytch etc. Again, you may use Google Scholar carefully. If you find it difficult to have the access to academic journals, the easiest way is to contact your university library if any. (5) He is a distinguished research fellow at the University of Notre Dame and University of Oxford. (6) He is a senior fellow at the University of Oxford. (7) He has a substantial impact outside academia such as popular debates. (8) He reviewed and edited numerous academic journals such as Erkenntnis, Philosophical Papers, Religious Studies etc. Therefore, it is indispensable to keep this article. --Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think you really missing the point here and provided more reasons for the article to be deleted as participating in debates, having citations around few hundreds, and being a postdoctoral research fellowships or a college tutor (that is his own words) is not a reason for article to be included here. see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for details about what the word "substantial" entail FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you read carefully the criteria, you will find that academics meeting any one of the criteria, are notable. There is no need to meet all criteria. One is enough. Max Baker-Hytch already satisfies the first criterion and others. Therefore, he meets the notability requirements.
- By the way, welcome to debate at Oxford. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think you really missing the point here and provided more reasons for the article to be deleted as participating in debates, having citations around few hundreds, and being a postdoctoral research fellowships or a college tutor (that is his own words) is not a reason for article to be included here. see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for details about what the word "substantial" entail FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
The section regarding mutual epistemic dependence is NOT a pure original research. If you read it carefully, you will find that J. L. Schellenberg's discussion on Max Baker-Hytch's mutual epistemic dependence Divine hiddenness: Part 2 (recent enlargements of the discussion) is cited. If you find yourself unable to get the access to academic journals, the easiest way is to contact your university library if any. Also, Max Baker-Hytch's mutual epistemic dependence is discussed by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. --Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Christianity, England, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Double-digit citation counts on Google Scholar fall below the bar for WP:PROF#C1. Being a Fellow at Oxford is just a teaching job, not the kind of honorary level of membership in a selective society (such as FRS) that would pass #C3. Reviewing for journals and occasionally getting cited in journals are things all academics do; our standards for notability are significantly above that level. Nothing else in the article even resembles a claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Max Baker-Hytch is not only a fellow but a reputable academic and researcher at Oxford. His work is characterised by its depth and relevance, evidenced by its considerable, significant impact within the academic sphere. In addition, his research consistently maintains a high rate of citations, further solidifying the claim to keep his article. As a result, he obviously meets WP:PROF#C1 and the established criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have struck out your comment as you are only allowed a single keep or delete opinion in a deletion discussion. This is not a vote; more keeps and more repetition of the same claims will not help. It is a discussion to clarify how Wikipedia's notability guidelines apply to this case and build concensus on whether Baker-Hytch does or does not meet those guidelines. You might also find WP:BLUDGEON to be helpful advice. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Striking out my comment is unacceptable and outrageous as it goes against a fair discussion on Wikipedia and the First Amendment.
- If I mistakenly make more than one KEEP, please delete the redundant KEEP but leave my comment intact. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have struck out your comment as you are only allowed a single keep or delete opinion in a deletion discussion. This is not a vote; more keeps and more repetition of the same claims will not help. It is a discussion to clarify how Wikipedia's notability guidelines apply to this case and build concensus on whether Baker-Hytch does or does not meet those guidelines. You might also find WP:BLUDGEON to be helpful advice. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Max Baker-Hytch has written numerous academic papers, resulting in a total citation rate (of all papers) higher than 100. This impressive achievement reflects the impact and significance of his contributions to the academic sphere. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- This promotional glurge reads like something an AI would write. [Comment referred to Special:Diff/1221275435 before it was edited to change what I replied to.] —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I am a human and not an AI, but I speak in a calm, formal manner. I am elaborating on my argument. Could you stop irrelevant distractions or personal attacks? We should focus on our clarification instead. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- 100 citations isn't a high bar for a real academic in most fields. I have 88 at the moment, and I've never held a non-clinical faculty appointment. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- But you are not from Oxford. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you read carefully, you will find that I said his TOTAL citation rate is higher than 100, not only 100 but significantly higher than that. The total citation rate and discussions on all his papers are obviously above one thousand. You may use Google Scholar to search all his papers and relevance discussions. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- This promotional glurge reads like something an AI would write. [Comment referred to Special:Diff/1221275435 before it was edited to change what I replied to.] —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Max Baker-Hytch is not only a fellow but a reputable academic and researcher at Oxford. His work is characterised by its depth and relevance, evidenced by its considerable, significant impact within the academic sphere. In addition, his research consistently maintains a high rate of citations, further solidifying the claim to keep his article. As a result, he obviously meets WP:PROF#C1 and the established criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks WP:TOOSOON for this 2014 PhD. Citations are far short of WP:NPROF, even in a low citation field. I don't see reviews of the one book for WP:NAUTHOR, and it would likely be a WP:BLP1E anyway. Little sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- It appears to me that you have only considered his DPhil thesis and have neglected many papers written by him. The total citation rate and discussions of all his papers are higher than hundreds or thousands (see Google Scholar). Therefore, there is no doubt that he meets the WP notability criteria. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I specifically address the citation record above. I have examined the publication and citation record, and see nothing that is not WP:MILL. There is one paper with a good number of citations relative to career stage, and not much else. As I say, WP:TOOSOON (at best). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- It appears to me that you have only considered his DPhil thesis and have neglected many papers written by him. The total citation rate and discussions of all his papers are higher than hundreds or thousands (see Google Scholar). Therefore, there is no doubt that he meets the WP notability criteria. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Pesclinomenosomlos has apparently been canvassing this AfD to multiple user talk pages [27] [28] [29] and has been blocked as a result. Pesclinomenosomlos, once your block expires: do not do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. TOOSOON is too generous. I see no evidence of coverage, let alone significant coverage. — HTGS (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete (if I'm allowed to !vote in these circumstances), there seems no reason to keep this article. I've no idea why I might have been canvassed to help keep the article, as I've not come across either editor or article subject; but since Pesclinomenosomlos has been indeffed, the matter is purely, er, philosophical. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Max Baker-Hytch has the extensive Authority Control Databases. He is likely to have the potential to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.127.168.31 (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)I noticed that Max Baker-Hytch is being discussed by many high profile academic journals, encyclopaedias and websites. For instance, IEP, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press and Research by the University of Birmingham.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.127.168.31 (talk)struck comments of IP, now blocked for block evasion- The Cambridge and Birmingham papers are the same paper. Are there any other sources? IEP and SEP mentions are good but quite brief. Shapeyness (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence that the subject stands out from the field. The IEP and SEP mentions, for example, are entirely unremarkable; a couple brief statements to the effect that an academic wrote a thing are not a suitable basis for an encyclopedia article. The text is heavily promotional, with boastful claims unsupported by the sources (e.g.,
His thesis [...] is considered a phenomenal contribution to the field
). The ending line of the intro, saying thatHe also proactively defends Christianity [...] on social media
, is either a truly pathetic angling for significance or damnation by faint praise. To delete will be a kindness. XOR'easter (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC) - Delete Inclusion in IEP and SEP articles is not nothing as those pages often detail only the more important contributions in a specific debate, but they are brief mentions and in a very niche subject matter. The same mostly goes for this Philosophy Compass article here doi:10.1111/phc3.12413. It seems the subject of the article is making some important contributions to a niche area of phil of religion but not really enough substantive analysis in RSes to support an article - WP:TOOSOON. Shapeyness (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
List of Premier League overseas broadcasters
- List of Premier League overseas broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, United Kingdom, and England. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Rory Phillips (DJ)
- Rory Phillips (DJ) (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)
Reason Sarcastathon (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
it doesn’t meet the criteria for notability. 1. Out of 4 references, 2 are links to artist’s own pages. 2 are PR pieces. 2. They have never had any single or album chart in their home country or abroad. 3. Nor have they had a record certified as gold. 4. They’ve never ‘had important coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country’ 5. Not released any albums. 6. Hasn’t been a member of 2 or more notable groups. 7. Hasn’t become one of the most important representatives of a notable style or the most important of the local scene of a city 8 & 9. Hasn’t won any awards 10. Not made music for any notable other media 11. Hasn’t been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network 12. Nor have they been subject of any documentaries etc Sarcastathon (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Sarcastathon (talk) 08:26, 28 April 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 April 28. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 08:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: No evidence of notability in the article and I'm unable to find any significant coverage of him online. InDimensional (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Daniel Rosenfeldt
- Daniel Rosenfeldt (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)
Hi; this is my first time both using Twinkle and participating in the AfD process, so try not to flame me too hard if I make a mistake here. This article has somewhat poor sourcing and I've done a check for his name to try and find anything on him but I've come up short. If anyone can find better sources for this, that would be great, but I'm unable to on my end. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and South Africa. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark, Switzerland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: nothing in the article suggests notability per WP:MUSICBIO and I'm unable to find any significant coverage online. InDimensional (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Harry Bardle
- Harry Bardle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced rugby BLP; subject made one pro appearance. All I really found was this transactional announcement. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: One app doesn't make you notable for a stand alone article. Mn1548 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Innkeeper's Collection
- Innkeeper's Collection (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 as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - four of five sources are their own website, the other a non-specific cite to an industry publication. AusLondonder (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. AusLondonder (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
*Delete per nom, Cannot find any evidence of any notability, Wish I had checked for sources before wasting my time moving the article/updating logo but hey ho. Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 15:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Davey2010 (talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to Mitchells & Butlers#Acquisitions per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion? Cunard (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Mitchells & Butlers#Acquisitions, the company that owns the brand, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Ben Obese-Jecty
- Ben Obese-Jecty (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)
Candidates for UK Parliament are not automatically notable. Similarly, writing a few newspaper articles also does not confer notability. Propose deleting and if he is successful in his campaign, it would be appropriate to make a page once he is elected. Drerac (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Cleo Cooper (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG, vast majority of sources cited in article are written by article subject. J2m5 (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as the number of sources appears to indicate notability for journalism purposes as well as his political career. If the decision is not made to keep the article, moving to draft space would make more sense than deletion, which would only mean a well-written article most likely having to be recreated from scratch after the election if he wins. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Aidan Burrell
- Aidan Burrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced rugby BLP; subject made one pro appearance. I found a couple sentences of coverage here and not much else. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Played one match, not notable. Mn1548 (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: this source says that he left Hull to pursue a full time job which implies his rugby career is concluded and we shouldn't expect any further coverage that would bring him up to a notability threshold. -- D'n'B-t -- 12:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Challenge Cup semi final
- Challenge Cup semi final (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)
Apparently I have to use AfD for this: I think this article should be moved to draftspace as it as the potential to be a good article similar to FA Cup semi-finals. However it is currently incomplete, unreferenced, and is not fit for the mainspace. Mn1548 (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 26. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 15:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby league, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: This page has been unreferenced since its creation in 2016. It's more likely that, if sent to draft space, it ends up being G13 deleted in 6 months time anyways. I'd prefer the matter of this get addressed here instead of being draftified and deleted in 6 months. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- That is a fair point. Another user has suggested deletion in a previous discussion. My preference is to move article to draft but I'm also not opposed to deletion as article can always be remade at a later date. My main issue with the article currently is not that it is unreferenced but rather is is incomplete in the sense that the list is missing everything from 1898 to 1979. Mn1548 (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Semi finals are not notable enough for a stand-alone article. I PROD'd this a while ago, but it was contested with an WP:OSE argument (i.e. FA Cup semi-finals exists, so this article should too). Even if the article were improved, I'm not convinced it is notable enough to pass WP:LISTN. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with this point. While I think this article could be made to the standard of the FA Cup article, the reality is football will always have more coverage than rugby league, so finding enough secondary sources might be problematic for it to pass as a stand alone list. Mn1548 (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Tristan Cousins
- Tristan Cousins (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:NSKATE; everything else seems to lack any notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Bradfield Abbey
- Bradfield Abbey (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 notability, the one reliable source Is the one referenced on the page which makes it clear the charter refering to the abbey having been built is probably fraudulent. I can find no other historical source that references any abbey existing in Bradfield. Tim Landy (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Christianity, and England. Tim Landy (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or merge with Bradfield, Berkshire. I can't find anything on Heritage Gateway on this. There is a mention here but otherwise I can't fine anything significant. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Jormungandr (roller coaster)
- Jormungandr (roller coaster) (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)
Probably either delete, or merge to Drayton Manor Resort due to lack of SIGCOV. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks, Entertainment, and England. Owen× ☎ 07:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, what kind of improvements would need to be made? Sorry this is my first page so not 100% sure if its ok but tried to mimic layouts and information of other rides. Thanks Maddisongiselle (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Maddisongiselle: The most important thing is finding more coverage of the coaster in reliable published sources. Do you know of stories about Jormungandr (or Buffalo Coaster) in newspapers, books, magazines or other web sources? Toughpigs (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- You did good work. Please read what @Toughpigs noted. Cleo Cooper (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
John Ratcliff (producer)
- John Ratcliff (producer) (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/WP:NBIO, and I do not believe being a producer for a notable band is an automatic WP:NMUSIC pass either. I could not locate sources with substantial coverage of Ratcliff. All sources cover him only peripherally, as a producer for a-Ha. The article is now primarily an autobiography. Would accept a redirect to a-Ha as an alternative to deletion. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and United Kingdom. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I not only re- produced the final masters of 8 of the tracks on a-ha’s 15 million selling first album Hunting High and Low but I also discovered them in 1983 and kept them, gave them £thousands and helped secure a record deal with Warners. I managed them under contract from 1983 to 1993 and without my financial and creative input they would have returned to Norway and never been heard of again! How dare you propose to delete this article. I have nearly completed my autobiography which inevitably contains the entire story of how I rescued them when they had no money left and put them in my recording studio for 2 years without any return for another 12 months. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Journalism, Television, Advertising, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- agree that REDIRECT to a-Ha is appropriate. Most sources are primary references. The only third party references are more about a-Ha with this subject being mentioned tangentially. Otherwise, this article seems more promotional than anything else. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- How dare you presume! You know nothing. In 1983 a-ha came into my studio but ran out of money after 2 weeks. For the next 2 years I covered every housing cost., food cost and leisure costs out of my own pocket because I believed in their talent.I also let them have free studio time for 2 years during which we recorded and produced nearly all of the tracks on their first album. I became their manager in 1983 and their contract lasted with me until 1993!Their best 10 years to date. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I.will take legal action if you have the cheek to remove this article. My autobiography is almost finished detailing my entire 10 years managing the band and the consequences for both a-ha and myself. 200 million record sales for a start! If you want a copy of my management contract with a-ha just ask. I lost my house and marriage while supporting the band before their success. Buy my autobiography next year and you can read every detail. Nobody, nobody knows the ‘a-ha’ history better than I do. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- How dare you presume! You know nothing. In 1983 a-ha came into my studio but ran out of money after 2 weeks. For the next 2 years I covered every housing cost., food cost and leisure costs out of my own pocket because I believed in their talent.I also let them have free studio time for 2 years during which we recorded and produced nearly all of the tracks on their first album. I became their manager in 1983 and their contract lasted with me until 1993!Their best 10 years to date. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Get your facts right. I discovered the band when they came into my studio and spent 2 weeks recording. I liked what I heard and when they ran out of time and money I supported them for 2 years before Take on Me became a bestseller.I was contractually their Manager from 1983 to 1993. I re-produced 8 out of 10 tracks on their first and most popular album Hunting high and Low. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: There are two decent sources on the article, both telling the story of the recording of "Take On Me": "Talking Away: A-Ha On The Making Of Take On Me" on The Quietus, and "Classic Tracks: A-ha 'Take On Me'" on Sound on Sound. There may be some claim to notability. However, the article subject badgering us and making legal threats on this deletion discussion makes it difficult for me to vote keep. Toughpigs (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you are not going to allow this article to remain then you are ignoring the truth of the matter. I thought the truth was a basic necessity of a site that should only provide fact.I am only writing as a matter of principle. My lawyers will only reveal their legal expertise. Buy the album…my name is all over the sleeve. More times than the band members themselves 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- To toughpig. I don’t give a damn - oh sorry..is that blasphemy? In this day and age? I am in no way making threats! I am merely standing up for myself and the truth.Who is your superior? Put him/her on to it before I wake up my lawyer and we can sort this out legally and properly. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I now understand the reason for your username. Well I am tough too but my lawyer is tougher, and very expensive as you will discover should this minuscule matter not be resolved satisfactorily. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- To tough pig. It says you have ‘2 decent sources’. What better ‘source’ could you have but myself. I discovered, produced and managed ‘a-ha’ for 10 years from 1983 to 1993. I think my knowledge of this entire matter is inevitably going to be seen as the most accurate. Your organisation obviously listens hardest to those names you recognise. You don’t realise that it’s the people behind the names who have a far greater knowledge and understanding for detail than you ever will. Change your username….or is it your real name? I do apologise. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- It will be very easy for me to find out who you really are. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Read my opening statements from the top again. Johnratcliff (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I am not harassing anyone. I am merely pointing out that I am not ‘just’ their producer. I discovered them in 1983, kept, housed, fed and gave them my studio for 2 years,signed them to an extremely lucrative management contract for 5 years and then to a major deal with Warners. That is an awful lot more than ‘producing’ a track don’t you think? Johnratcliff (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I was their manager from 1983 to 1993.I still get royalties!
- Why am I having to justify facts that are common knowledge in my industry? Johnratcliff (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I saw your opening statement and I believe you when you say you've done all those things for the band and were important to their success. But saying things like "
I will take legal action if you have the cheek to remove this article
", "My lawyers will only reveal their legal expertise
", "before I wake up my lawyer and we can sort this out legally
", and "It will be very easy for me to find out who you really are
" is not okay here. You need to avoid making statements that can be construed as legal threats or threats to reveal someone's identity. - "
Why am I having to justify facts that are common knowledge in my industry?
" is a valid question. The answer is that one of the pillars of Wikipedia is that information here is verifiable: readers must be able to check that any information is not just made up. That means we can't rely on what's "common knowledge" in any industry unless it's been published in reliable sources somewhere. When your autobiography is published, we may be able to use it as a source in a-ha (depending on whether it is self-published or not). But we can't just rely on your own personal statements here, even if we believe them. Jfire (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I am not harassing anyone. I am merely pointing out that I am not ‘just’ their producer. I discovered them in 1983, kept, housed, fed and gave them my studio for 2 years,signed them to an extremely lucrative management contract for 5 years and then to a major deal with Warners. That is an awful lot more than ‘producing’ a track don’t you think? Johnratcliff (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- To tough pig. It says you have ‘2 decent sources’. What better ‘source’ could you have but myself. I discovered, produced and managed ‘a-ha’ for 10 years from 1983 to 1993. I think my knowledge of this entire matter is inevitably going to be seen as the most accurate. Your organisation obviously listens hardest to those names you recognise. You don’t realise that it’s the people behind the names who have a far greater knowledge and understanding for detail than you ever will. Change your username….or is it your real name? I do apologise. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I now understand the reason for your username. Well I am tough too but my lawyer is tougher, and very expensive as you will discover should this minuscule matter not be resolved satisfactorily. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- To toughpig. I don’t give a damn - oh sorry..is that blasphemy? In this day and age? I am in no way making threats! I am merely standing up for myself and the truth.Who is your superior? Put him/her on to it before I wake up my lawyer and we can sort this out legally and properly. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I apologise if you feel I was harassing you. ‘a-ha’ is a very sensitive subject for me. I gave up my home and lost my wife and young child on account of my involvement with a-ha. So it is a passionate and sensitive subject.
- I reiterate, I am very sorry to have upset you.
- John Johnratcliff (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you are not going to allow this article to remain then you are ignoring the truth of the matter. I thought the truth was a basic necessity of a site that should only provide fact.I am only writing as a matter of principle. My lawyers will only reveal their legal expertise. Buy the album…my name is all over the sleeve. More times than the band members themselves 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to a-ha (with merging in of any useful information) pending publication of the autobiography referred to by the 217 IP (who appears to be the same person as Johnratcliff?). If it gets reviews in reliable sources, the article can then be reinstated based on those in addition to the few good sources currently present. Notability is borderline at present, since it can't be inherited from the band (and since our criterion for an independent page is notability, not admiration). The article is an under-referenced BLP and the last paragraph is stylistically inappropriate: "PS ... John". But it may be rewritable from sources a year from now. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per above, does not seem independently notable. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per Yngvadottir. I removed a lot of recent COI additions that were entirely unsourced. Those should not be in a BLP. What remains are 4 sources that I will throw into a source analysis table:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirfurboy
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://www.johnratcliff.com/john--a-ha | "In his own words". His own website. WP:SPS | ? Reliable but self promotional | ✘ No | |
https://web.archive.org/web/20220521024623/https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/ha-take-me | I believe it is. Didn't actually check. | He is mentioned in the source several times but there is no significant information about him | ✘ No | |
https://thequietus.com/articles/18805-aha-hunting-high-and-low-take-on-me-review-anniversary | He is mentioned in the source several times but there is no significant information about him | ✘ No | ||
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/01727601 | A primary source that says nothing about Ratcliffe in any case | ✘ 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}}. |
However the redirect is reasonable as this is clearly someone who gets a mention regarding a-ha and is borderline notable. Although the above assessment covers what is in the page, there could be more secondary sources on him. However the name is quite common and searching is complicated by finding other notable Jonh Ratcliffes. I was not able to find any suitable coverage, but if multiple independent reliable secondary sources with sigificant coverage can be found, then, of course, this would be a notable subject for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to a-ha: Not enough notability outside of a-ha to warrant an individual page. InDimensional (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to a-ha. I haven't been able to find sources to support WP:GNG beyond those mentioned here, and none of those support a stand-alone article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Trés Hanley
- Trés Hanley (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)
Strong WP:COI vibes; the article creator has (mostly) only edited this article over a period of 14 years, also uploaded the two pictures as "own work" that are in the article. Sources are the subject's personal website and two sources that don't meet WP:RS. Lots of unsourced cruft. A search for more RS reveals lots of user-generated content, which fits the pattern. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Television, Theatre, England, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I've removed most of the cruft, including an uncited and frankly ridiculous assertion that she was the first American ever to play Polly in A Beggar's Opera. IBDB lists 7 productions on Broadway alone. Having gotten rid of all that, it appears that some of her roles were more than just bit parts, but if no one can find sufficient press coverage, she would not be considered Notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
History of rugby union matches between Leicester and Leinster
- History of rugby union matches between Leicester and Leinster (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 is no real rivalry between these two sides, with no WP:GNG coverage of the rivalry, just a collection of stats with violates WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. Similar discussions such as this and this have shown a clear consensus on these sorts of articles. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, Ireland, and England. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I have to agree with the nom. I do not see how WP:NRIVALRY is met. While there is coverage of other rivalries with Leinster (eg: "Leinster drawn with fierce rivals La Rochelle" "Rivalries we Love" (..) "Stade Toulousain v Leinster Rugby" "Penalties Give Leinster The Edge Over Rivals Munster", etc) the only material coverage of a "rivalry" with Leicester, that I can find, is this primary source. Which was published the same week as this article. Straying from an objective review of the volume/reliability/relevance/applicability of sources, from a subjective point-of-view, these sides have only met 15 times in nearly 30 years. Which is well short of the 100+ games with provincial rivals (like Munster) and, per nom, in the same region as the other AfD discussions listed. While the sources just about cover the WP:NOTSTATS content in the article, I note that none of them appear to describe those games as involving "rivals". Not seeing how WP:NRIVALRY (incl WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NLIST or WP:GNG) is met here.... Guliolopez (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Rina Yasutake
- Rina Yasutake (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)
Reviewed during NPP. Combination of wp Notability events and wp:not news. Story of a lady who died and the family kept the body in the house. Two of the three sources were the news reports on it the third says that is is providing the Wikipedia data on the topic. Tagged by others for sources and notability since December. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Japan, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Should really be an article about the "death of Rina Yasutake". As a person, she isn't notable, the circumstances surrounding her demise seem to be, there are at least 4 BBC stories that pop up in Gnews and some in other news outlets... But I'm not really sure that is enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Even if you changed it to an article about her death, one could argue that all the family members are living persons and are thus entitled to WP:BLP protections. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: No notability for the person, the events surrounding her demise could perhaps be written NPOV, but I don't see enough sourcing to do so. A story could be told I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable death, not heard of it until this AfD.
- SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Jamie Draven
- Jamie Draven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant in-depth coverage. All I could find were passing mentions (more or less like these 1, 2, 3, 4) and Wiki mirrors. Moreover, the article is unreferenced. X (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln
- Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln (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 congregation has no notability. St Helen's Church, Lincoln is grade II* listed and rightly has a separate article; Holy Cross Church has no claim to notability, and nor does the joint congregation which worships at the two churches. A merge proposal template was removed from the St Helen's article with no explanation, after a brief discussion of the proposed merge (propose, oppose from creator of both the articles, one further comment from proposer). I considered just redirecting this article to St Helen's but bring it here to get further eyes on the discussion. A Redirect to St Helen's Church, Lincoln would be my preferred outcome from this AfD. PamD 07:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. PamD 07:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to St Helen's Church, Lincoln or just redirect. There is mergeable content. The congregation are not notable for an article, per nom., but the joint use of this and another church by a single congregation is worth mention on the merge target page - it is the current use of this church. It is a small merge, but a merge nonetheless. The merge discussion has the page creator arguing for the notability of Holy Cross. I don't think those arguments pass muster, but they are not a reason to keep this page which is specifically about the joint congregation. A Holy Cross church article could be created although my view is that it would not meet notability requirements and should not be attempted without sufficient reliable secondary sourcing. I didn't see where the merge header was removed, but it clearly lacked visibility, so the discussion here is appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Sirfurboy The article on St Helen's already includes "The church is joined with the nearby Holy Cross Church as the "Congregation of Holy Cross and St Helen's".", with a link to the parish website. Is that enough? The merge header was removed earlier today with the uninformative edit summary "Slight tweaks". PamD 09:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ah yes, I see it now. Yes, on the basis the information is already there, I have unbolded my merge and bolded redirect instead in this edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Agree the two churches are linked and can be covered in St Helen's Church, Lincoln. There isn't a church called Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln, so that title as a redirect may be of limited use. For readers to find content on Holy Cross it would need a redirect page, titled "Holy Cross Church, Boultham" or such like. The main discussion point regarding a merge is whether there should be an infobox for each church, just for one of the churches or a combined one. Found brief local news reports on Holy Cross's opening in 1940, which can be used for additional factual content. None of the references currently in the article count towards notability and so far I haven't found feature length coverage. Rupples (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that one article is sufficient to cover both churches however it is accomplished. Esemgee (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think Holy Cross church needs to be covered at all, except perhaps in a list of churches in Lincoln. It appears to have no claim to notability. PamD 13:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Holy Cross is mentioned in Boultham and Wikiproject UKGEOG content guidelines for settlements say to note churches within their locality WP:UKTOWNS#Religious sites — it doesn't state the church has to be notable for inclusion. Rupples (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Churches mentioned in settlement articles don't have to have their own article. Maybe this article should be renamed and redirected to St Helen's Church. Esemgee (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Take it you mean 'redirect' rather than 'article' as the closing word in the first sentence?Yes, agree with a retitle, and redirect to St Helen's but I've seen an admin state not to do this before the AfD closes. Suppose we'd recommend redirect under the current title then rename the redirect page. Rupples (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC). Strike, maybe misread. Rupples (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Churches mentioned in settlement articles don't have to have their own article. Maybe this article should be renamed and redirected to St Helen's Church. Esemgee (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Holy Cross is mentioned in Boultham and Wikiproject UKGEOG content guidelines for settlements say to note churches within their locality WP:UKTOWNS#Religious sites — it doesn't state the church has to be notable for inclusion. Rupples (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think Holy Cross church needs to be covered at all, except perhaps in a list of churches in Lincoln. It appears to have no claim to notability. PamD 13:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability not established for this church. The title of this article "Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln" is inaccurate and misleading. It leads one to think it's the name of a single church building. The website for the church is Boulton Parish and the home page begins The Congregation at Holy Cross and St. Helen's. We already have an article St Helen's Church, Lincoln where reliably sourced detail on Holy Cross can be added. It's simpler to delete this, add a section to St Helen's about Holy Cross and create a redirect page, (suggest Holy Cross, Boultham) than redirect this article's rather nonsensical title. Rupples (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Rupples There's already a redirect, with categories, at Holy Cross Church, Lincoln, and that is listed in the dab page at Holy Cross Church#United Kingdom. OK, have now created Holy Cross Church, Boultham as a second redirect. Both currently pointing to this article, Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln, but if this is deleted or redirected they should both target St Helen's Church, Lincoln where the church gets a mention. PamD 16:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Georgina Mellor
- Georgina Mellor (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)
Unref BLP; I couldn't find sources to establish she can meet WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete can't find any WP:SIGCOV. Orange sticker (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Barlaston Parish Council
- Barlaston Parish Council (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)
Lowest-level local government authority in England - there are more than 10,000 parish councils and they are rarely notable. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. No secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with Barlaston I agree small parish councils generally don't need separate articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- The parish council is already covered at Barlaston, so there's nothing to merge from what I can see. AusLondonder (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Nick Winston
- Nick Winston (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)
Zero inline sources in entire article, no evidence of significant notability online. The article is of significant length, but there are few sources and none inline. 2003 LN6 05:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 2003 LN6 05:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Highly promotional and is practically a list of accomplishments without sourcing. Shadow311 (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. There are hundreds of reviews of his work, and he has directed and/or choreographed numerous West End musicals. Obviously, no one did the research to add references to this article, but that is not a justification for deletion at AfD. I agree that the massive list of credits should be severely culled, but that is a task for another day. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Strong news coverage exists as stated by Ssilvers. He seems to have some awards as well. IMO, it should not have been nominated. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)- Keep definitely meets WP:GNG although article needs clean up. Orange sticker (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Yes the writing is crummy needing a rewrite but notability is met here. X (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Holderness museums
- Holderness museums (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)
Unclear what this article is even about. Mentions one small archive, without a claim to notability, shared across the 3 museums that aren't otherwise tied together. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, History, and United Kingdom. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. This BBC reference explains the oral history project. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Its a project or scheme to record oral histories. Its not encyclopaedic. I searched and looked for sources but there's nothing I can find. Desertarun (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Sylvan Anderton
- Sylvan Anderton (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)
sportsperson stub. fails general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Kingdom. ltbdl (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – The player appears to have a substantial number of appearances for Reading and Chelsea. I think it's a matter of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - clearly notable. Over 200 appearances in England's professional football league (verified by the Neil Brown source in the article sas well as sources like this), while a quick Google search brings up things like this and this which clearly indicate historical (read: offline) coverage. A lazy nomination. GiantSnowman 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- are those football cards? ltbdl (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- ...yes? GiantSnowman 07:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- football cards aren't reliable sources ltbdl (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Has that ever been decided? I'd think if it were by a reputable company it would be reliable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- that's crazy ltbdl (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Football cards being reliable sources made me literally laugh out loud. AusLondonder (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't a reputable card company be reliable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- amazing. 10/10. no notes. ltbdl (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- ? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- At no point have I claimed that football cards are reliable. I was merely suggesting that appearing on football cards - and, if you had bothered to Google him, all the other historical coverage at photo archives etc. - suggests there is coverage out there, which research by others below has supported. GiantSnowman 18:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- ? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- amazing. 10/10. no notes. ltbdl (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't a reputable card company be reliable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Football cards being reliable sources made me literally laugh out loud. AusLondonder (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- that's crazy ltbdl (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Has that ever been decided? I'd think if it were by a reputable company it would be reliable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- football cards aren't reliable sources ltbdl (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- ...yes? GiantSnowman 07:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- are those football cards? ltbdl (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep With the amount of games he played and the clubs he played for seems good enough, combined with GS sources above and probably much more WP:OFFLINESOURCES, this needs improvement for sure. Govvy (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep More than 200 professional appearances for teams with deep, deep histories and legacies. This is very obvious. Clearly notable. Anwegmann (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Fails GNG and lacks SIGCOV. An actual check of the newspapers.com archive finds nothing but mentions in match reports/transfer stories. He went on to play cricket for Bryant Rose Cricket Club and won the raffle four years in a row there but that is trivial stuff. NFOOTBALL has been depreciated since 2022 so any Keeps based on number of games played must be ignored by the closer. He isn't notable either for playing for some "notable" clubs per NOTINHERITED. Dougal18 (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I frequently see editors citing Wikipedia:But there must be sources! in AfDs for footballers with dozens of international caps. I'd like to see the same standard applied to footballers with "over 200 appearances in England's professional football league". How do football cards indicate offline coverage, @GiantSnowman:? As Dougal18 points out so far it has not been demonstrated that SIGCOV exists. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Mostly per Dougal18's reasoning. Footballers are not inherently notable - they need to meet WP:GNG. This is clear community consensus. Simply asserting that an individual played for notable teams is not a suitable AfD argument. If nothing can be found in newspaper archives, then he's not notable. Another point is this is little more than an infobox and a pseudo-biography. AusLondonder (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- There seems to be a decent amount of newspaper coverage, although it is mostly brief-ish: see [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. An argument could be made for WP:NBASIC, considering he seemed to have significant amount of appearances for prominent clubs. Not sure if that changes anyone's views: @Ltbdl, AusLondonder, Dougal18, and Robby.is.on:? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, per Dougal and AusLondoner. Football cards do not contribute to notability at all, and given passing mentions in match reports don't count towards even BASIC for modern players they shouldn't count for old players either. We don't have a single piece of the required IRS SIGCOV, so we have no valid justification for retaining this article. JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment He also has a biographical entry in Chelsea The Complete Record: author: Rick Glanvill isbn: 9781909245303 also mentioned in The Little Book of Reading FC - 1920-2008 author: Alan Sedunary isbn: 9781780913711. There maybe more books with biographical information. Govvy (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Glanvill is Chelsea's official historian, he is not an independent source. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reply @JoelleJay: That's not correct, nor is it proper to discredit him. Will you do the same for Historians who went to Oxford and Cambridge and write about those subjects? He is a published author and a reputable one at that. Please don't use this argument ever again on any credited club historian. Govvy (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- He's literally hired by the club to write about club history. Of course he isn't independent. And if a historian is employed by Oxford to write about Oxford history then they aren't independent either. JoelleJay (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @JoelleJay: Again you really have no idea, the Chelsea book is independent to the club, published by De Coubertin Books
deCoubertin Books is a leading independent publisher, which publishes outstanding non-fiction titles predicated on high editorial and production values. We work with some of the biggest names in sport and sportswriting and our books have been nominated for numerous awards.
Being hired by a club doesn't make the book published by the club. Also the link provided says he is the club historian, because he is the top of his field in the history for the club, at no time does that post on the Chelsea page say he is hired directly for them. The Reading book is published by Breedon Books Publishing Co Ltd and not Reading Football Club. These are both independent publishers to the clubs. I really don't understand why you feel these are primary sources when they are not remotely so. Govvy (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)- Being an employee of the club (
He has worked for all Chelsea FC's publications and media since 1993 and is the club's official historian.
) means the person has a COI with the club, and this applies to material the person publishes through independent publishers (and obviously anything authored by the club would go through an external publisher; it's not like each club has its own book publishing house; the "Official Biography" of Chelsea that hepenned ... for the club
is through Headline Publishing Group). We'd consider a book authored by a relative of the subject to be non-independent regardless of where it's published; the same applies here. And what part of "the club's official historian", as recorded on the club's website, makes you think he's not working directly for them.....
I didn't say anything about primary sources. I said they are non-independent. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Being an employee of the club (
- @JoelleJay: Again you really have no idea, the Chelsea book is independent to the club, published by De Coubertin Books
- He's literally hired by the club to write about club history. Of course he isn't independent. And if a historian is employed by Oxford to write about Oxford history then they aren't independent either. JoelleJay (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reply @JoelleJay: That's not correct, nor is it proper to discredit him. Will you do the same for Historians who went to Oxford and Cambridge and write about those subjects? He is a published author and a reputable one at that. Please don't use this argument ever again on any credited club historian. Govvy (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Glanvill is Chelsea's official historian, he is not an independent source. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Sports cards are reliable sources stat-wise.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – For the arguments presented so far in the discussion. I see no reason to discredit a club historian, or sports cards, considering that the athlete played in the 50s and 60s. The sources presented by @Govvy demonstrate credibility. Svartner (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Credibility of who? Dougal18 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The authors of mentioned books. Svartner (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- So employees of the football club are somehow exempted from the NSPORT guidance saying
Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players
if they don't publish directly on the website?
The sports cards are completely trivial stats coverage. Why would they count? JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- So employees of the football club are somehow exempted from the NSPORT guidance saying
- The authors of mentioned books. Svartner (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Credibility of who? Dougal18 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The delete arguments seem a bit WP:IDONTLIKEIT, in their attempts to discredit what seems like reasonable coverage. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Paolo Tasca (professor)
- Paolo Tasca (professor) (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)
Previously deleted and salted as Paolo Tasca * Pppery * it has begun... 14:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Computing, Italy, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Delete
Delete-- I don't have access to the deleted versions of the article, but since it has been deleted and salted, the level of improvement to notability needs to be higher than typical to keep, and I don't see a WP:PROF pass here that would warrant it. But UCL is a significant university, so I don't want to be too hasty -- salting seems to me to be primarily based on a "wasting the community's time" basis and not on a "this person couldn't possibly be notable" one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Moving to weak delete by Mikejisuzu's arguments, but nothing warrants speedy keep by a long shot. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Note that he's actually only an associate professor, not a full professor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep -- Paolo Tasca is much more notable now in 2024, with multiple publications and third-party media references. Right now Tasca has several citations in triple digits. I'd argue that notability itself has increased significantly since the last deletion.
- Given the higher requirement for notability, Tasca should have at least one well-cited multiple author work and others in double digits. From a quick look at Google Scholar, he has 6 works in triple-digit citations and more than 20 with double-digit citations. It looks like he has also grown in notability from a media perspective at least regards to reliable sources such as Euronews, and Project Syndicate. [37] As a result, Tasca clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NPROF notability criteria. Mikejisuzu (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Whoever gave you the idea that that is enough citations in the very highly-cited field of computer science? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well, for a start the title is a lie, as he's an associate professor, not a professor. Why do people involved with blockchain always seem to lie like this? Exaggeration is a sign of immaturity, not strength. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment on notability, encyclopedic relevance, academic publications, positions, and so on - In response to Phil's and Necrothesp's comments: Paolo Tasca's work is multidisciplinary, and he also does a lot of work in economics. Please check Google Scholar for his many dozens of academic publications. This is certainly enough to establish basic notability. (Google Scholar)
- And if that's not enough, there's an official UCL profile as well with additional information. (UCL page) UCL is one of the top universities in the UK and Europe, equivalent to an Ivy League-type institution. We can't just delete UCL, or Yale, professors with many dozens of publications unless we can demonstrate solid reasons for why they absolutely don't fit into the scope of this online encyclopedia. This is definitely a serious academic, not some self-promoting "motivational speaker" or "life coach."
- There are plenty of academics out there who used to be non-notable, but have since become much more notable due to their recent extensive publications, research, and presentations. Tasca would certainly be one of them. Simply having a previous deletion or two should not prevent the subject from being permanently barred from eventually having a Wikipedia article even after the subject has eventually attained sufficient notability. I understand that the nominator thinks that Tasca had been deleted before and hence would like to reconsider whether or not the article should remain deleted. Nevertheless, by now, I strongly believe that his notability and encyclopedic relevance has greatly increased, and he is certainly worth including on Wikipedia now. This article is now certainly useful and relevant for encyclopedia readers, which is what Wikipedia is meant for.
- I would also really like to see more experienced users vote on this issue, particularly @Cunard: and others.
- As for Tasca being an "associate professor"? I'm not sure who created the page and why they decided on "(professor)", but it certainly seems fair enough to me. The article creator didn't try to put "(full professor)." A professor is a professor, whether he or she is an full, associate, assistant, or adjunct professor. Thus, "(professor)" is a fair an accurate description, and I think it's unfair to call out the article creator for inaccurately describing the subject and picking on whether Tasca is a full or associate professor.
- I hope that I have laid out a strong case for why Paolo Tasca should be a strong keep and speedy keep. Mikejisuzu (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Associate and assistant professors are types of non-professor, not of professor. "Full professor" is an American term, but the subject has no connection with America. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
A professor is a professor, whether he or she is an full, associate, assistant, or adjunct professor.
No they're not. In the UK, these people used to be (and in many universities are still) called lecturers, senior lecturers and readers, not professors. An associate or assistant professor who called themselves or insisted on being addressed as "professor" would still be looked on askance, because they have no right to that title. The use of "professor" as a synonym for "academic" is an Americanism, pure and simple. Elsewhere, the unqualified "professor" only refers to someone who holds a chair. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree that
salting seems to me to be primarily based on a "wasting the community's time" basis and not on a "this person couldn't possibly be notable" one
; this certainly looks like someone who could become notable under WP:NPROF. But I agree that citations are not high, given his discipline. Note also that our article contains false claims; he is not the author of The FinTech Book or Banking Beyond Banks and Money. Both books are edited collections. (He is not one of the editors of the former, either.) -- asilvering (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC) - Delete The citation profile doesn't stand out (any way you slice his career, it's in high-citation-rate areas), and no other grounds for notability are available. Overriding the decision to salt a page would require a much stronger case than can be made here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Wallflower (band)
- Wallflower (band) (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 article since 2011. Searching for refs is difficult as there is a more successful band called "The Wallflowers", but even after including band members names into the search it seems like they received no coverage. Nothing in the article writeup suggests Wikipedia notability. InDimensional (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I’m the original article author. Happy to have article deleted. Band came to an end in 1998 with little notable activity.
(talk) 13:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and England. InDimensional (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Gates and Partners
- Gates and Partners (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)
Unclear that notability has been established. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Business. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Belgium, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. All the available coverage falls well within WP:ORGTRIV. I was not able to find anything more substantial. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect into Kennedys Law into which Gates was dissolved. Why wasn't this suggested upfront? gidonb (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Victoria Park Harriers and Tower Hamlets Athletics Club
- Victoria Park Harriers and Tower Hamlets Athletics 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)
Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)- Delete. We don't have remotely enough coverage here to meet NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
McKenzie Buckley
- McKenzie Buckley (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 coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I am also nominating the folllowing article as he is a member of the same team (St Helens R.F.C.) who also fails to meet WP:SPORTBASIC:
- Ben Lane (rugby league) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Professional rugby league footballer who has played football at the elite level. 5 sources related to his football career.Fleets (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Doesn't appear as if he is currently playing, one pro aperance isn't sufficient. Mn1548 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)- Delete - Only routine coverage aka signings and game reports, WP:SPORTBASIC. Other keep votes here should be discounted for making no mention of source depth. BrigadierG (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep - Five sources, even if none of them are specific to the subject, and the fact that most other team members have their own articles as well. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- GNG requires in-depth coverage. Mere mentions in sources do not suffice. JTtheOG (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm well aware, but if you want to be strict with that an AFD should be made for George Delaney, Ben Lane (rugby league), and other members of the St. Helens team as many only have passing or list mentions.
- Buckley and others have their only specific mention on the rugby league project website, which isn't very in-depth as you said. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, yes they should. If you fling 100 non-notable stubs onto Wikipedia, you can't then also defend them from deletion by pointing out that the other 99 still exist. BrigadierG (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Bundled the two others I mentioned who fall under the same deletion criteria with this AFD. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Did you do a WP:BEFORE search? Articles should probably be nominated individually anyways, which I was reminded of two days ago. JTtheOG (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, though looking at that previous AFD I'll retract the nomination for Delaney for now as he seems to have slightly more content than the other two, though still nothing in-depth. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- You need to use the additional nominations template or else it messes up the closure process. BrigadierG (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's there right below the initial nomination. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- You need to use the additional nominations template or else it messes up the closure process. BrigadierG (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, though looking at that previous AFD I'll retract the nomination for Delaney for now as he seems to have slightly more content than the other two, though still nothing in-depth. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Did you do a WP:BEFORE search? Articles should probably be nominated individually anyways, which I was reminded of two days ago. JTtheOG (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Bundled the two others I mentioned who fall under the same deletion criteria with this AFD. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, yes they should. If you fling 100 non-notable stubs onto Wikipedia, you can't then also defend them from deletion by pointing out that the other 99 still exist. BrigadierG (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- GNG requires in-depth coverage. Mere mentions in sources do not suffice. JTtheOG (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I was also unable to find any coverage of Ben Lane. JTtheOG (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep for Ben Lane per WP:BUNDLE. Nominating another article after several editors have already commented in this AfD is not appropriate. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of meeting SPORTCRIT. The Ben Lane AfD should occur separately but I'd !vote delete there too. JoelleJay (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Henry Hereford
- Henry Hereford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about an actor, and added a reference to his employer's website; but cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources, and do not think he meets WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)- Not an article for deletion - definitely meets the criteria for actor. Multiple credits in major film and tv shows. 2600:1700:4640:E70:ECCA:5D5:421E:ECB4 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by "employer". Henry is an established actor having been on several films and TV shows as referenced in IMDB and trade magazines. There is no reason this page would be deleted. Thefilmsorcerer (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)- Delete Fails GNG or NACTOR. A 21st-century actor and yet yields no results in Google News tells a lot. General searches also did not produce anything of use. Other than 1-2, the used refs aren't about him rather the films/shows he's starred in. X (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Barby Storage Reservoir
- Barby Storage Reservoir (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 refs on the page for many years, not seeing much which could be considered against the notability criteria for inclusion. It certainly exists, the trouble is finding substantial reliable sources about it. As an ATD we could merge to the reservoir section on Severn Trent JMWt (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and England. JMWt (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Now sourced. However, if there is merge, it should be to Draycote Water. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comments on the improvements to the article since its nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Jensen Monk
- Jensen Monk (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 coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Draftification would be an option, but this is a re-creation of an existing draft. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Professional rugby league footballer who made his professional debut in 2023, played the other day against fellow top level side Warrington in the Challenge Cup. Multiple sources within the article.Fleets (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Currently playing in the top tier with five appearances and will likely gain more. Currently borderline on notability for me but will likely be recreated if deleated. Mn1548 (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. He might be notable in the future but that would be speculating. Re-create if and when he plays a few more games and more sources are likely to exist. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Sources are exclusively namedrops, zero coverage here. Arguments to keep based only on his appearing in a particular league are strictly invalid per SPORTSBASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of London Broncos players. Fails GNG as there is no SIGCOV. References are routine coverage and stats databases. Frank Anchor 01:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - two further news sources added referencing academy days, move into first team, and first appearance of the 2024 season.Fleets (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Young player, will likely have more written in the near future, 8 refs already. Mn1548 (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @J Mo 101: @JoelleJay: Would y'all consider a redirect to List of London Broncos players to be a better alternative? JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
George John Seaton
- George John Seaton (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. All the significant sources dealing with the topic are written by the subject. All others simply reference background story and not the subject. Fails WP:GNG . An earlier version was draftified because it lacked any credible claim to notability, so the same authored simply created this new version in mainspace without improving notability. Velella Velella Talk 15:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Africa, France, England, and South America. Velella Velella Talk 15:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete- as well as the lack of notability, the whole thing reads like a school essay. Or maybe from a chat-bot. This is highlighted by the following comment in the lede: "This article explores George John Seaton's life as a prisoner, slave, and man. It will include researched documentation as well as information from his personal book, Isle of the Damned, to piece together the story of this man's intriguing life."--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)- It reads like a school essay because the person who wrote the article, Jeorgiaobrien, is a university student who made it for an assignment. Just putting that out there in case anyone else who comes across this doesn't know. Sadustu Tau (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- I propose moving the article into the draftspace. As the user above noted, this is part of a student assignment, in which first-year college students are grappling with understanding the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. The article was prematurely moved to the mainspace and correctly flagged—but it can be turned into a feasible Wikipedia article because there is a relevant source base.
- Seaton’s notability primarily arises from the extensive reception of his autobiography, which occurred in two waves: 1) initial reception upon publication in the early 1950s, around the time Devil's Island ceased operations as a penal colony, by a largely Anglophone public and 2) the use of his autobiographical account in the contemporary historiography on French Guiana and related topics that reach from the treatment of prisoners across the French Empire to examples of queer sexuality during incarceration. In short, given that there is only a limited number of prisoners’ own accounts from their time in French Guiana (some of which have further been debunked as hoaxes), Seaton’s autobiography has become a standard historical source among scholars—and he, by extension, a model prisoner of sorts.
- I have advised the student to make the necessary edits to turn this article into a proper encyclopedic essay, and to restructure it around the significance of his autobiography, which can be properly verified with secondary sources. We would appreciate it if she received the opportunity to make these edits in the draftspace. Outcasts&Outlaws (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - as nominator, I have no problem with this being moved back to Draft. I would have done so myself had there not already been a Draft in existnce preventing the new version being draftified. It will therefore need an Admin to do the draftification. However, I or any other editor, will still have be convinced by the sourcing that this person is indeed notable and not simply a self publicist, before accepting it in Mainspace. Velella Velella Talk 17:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I am the author of this article. I am continuously working on the article, so it meets the notability requirements. There are no longer any direct quotes from Seaton's autobiography and any wording that may sound like an essay has been removed. Here is a list of secondary sources that speak directly of Seaton and are sourced throughout the article: Negros with Slaves by Jet Magazine, Words of the Week by Jet Magazine, Space in the Tropics by Peter Redfield (University of California Press), and Empire of the Underworld (Harvard University Press). Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- As I have been working on improving the article, there are now over 10 new sources that are all secondary sources and relate to George John Seaton. I have implemented many changes including formatting, word choice, and the removal of any primary source quotes. Please review this article once again. If you have more improvements you would like me to make, please visit my talk page. I will be happy to continue to make changes. After reviewing the article, if it meets notability requirements then I would love for this article to no longer be flagged for deletion. I am doing my best to follow Wikipedia's guidelines while also sharing a story of a man who should be remembered. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Change !vote to Keep - the changes described above tip the scales (just) in my opinion. I would still like to see the article's tone cleaned up to fix unsupported phrases like "notoriously one of the worst penal colonies of its time", "if imprisonment didn't kill a prisoner, then disease would", etc. and to spend less space discussing Papillon in two different sections. But I think this can be done in place rather that draftifying. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - From a brief look at this article and its references, perhaps it could be retitled Isle of the Damned and be restructured to be about the book/s Isles and Scars - their reviews and reception, use by University of Michigan, comparisons, censorship, etc? It would of course include a potted bio of Seaton. Is there enough for WP:NBOOK? JennyOz (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback. I will speak with my professor about the suggestion and consider your idea. Best wishes, Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has basically been rewritten over the past two weeks and we have an unbolded "Keep" from the article creator. I'd like to hear from others, especially the nominator, whether these changes made to the article affect your point of view of what should happen with it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment as the nominator, I still remain uncertain about notability. As indicated above, I would be content with draftification to allow for improvement. I don't have access to any of the sources added during the recent major revision, but from their context it appears that the content of the book has been used in historical analysis both about the prison and its treatment of prisoners and other topics. Had this article been about the book, this may well have been sufficiet to demonstrate notability, but since , in this case, notability dependends on demonstrating multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject, I cannot be sure that that has been achieved, especially as most of the claims to notability are bundled into a single short paragraph at the end. Those with access to the quoted sources may possibly disagree, in which case I would be content to defer to their better understanding. Velella Velella Talk 22:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your uncertainty about the article's notability but the changes you first requested when you flagged my article for deletion have since been implemented. As for the accessibility of sources, nearly all of these sources come from publications made by recognized universities or from google books, etc. You should not have trouble accessing these sources if you wish to learn more. The only sources you may have trouble retrieving are the sources pulled from my university's archives. However, being that we are a research university, it is possible to access these upon reaching out to the university.
- We did in fact leave out any claim that Seaton's book is credible. This is because the book is not being used as a source in the article but is instead just being referenced. My professor and I felt that it was more scholarly to explain how the book has been used in case studies rather than trying to persuade readers that the book is credible.
- From your comment, it seems that your biggest issue with the article is the uncertainty that the sources are referencing Seaton himself. Most of these sources do speak directly of Seaton and were published after devil's island was closed in 1953. Seaton gained popularity for surviving the island which led to news coverage of him. These articles are all sourced in the article and as mentioned above they are public access if you wish to find them.
- As the nominator, please give specific examples of what you would like changed in order to ensure notability and I will do so. I want to once again emphasize that nearly all of these sources can be accessed by the public and are available online. This can reassure you that subject matter is being reported on directly and not the context surrounding him. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment from a leaning-towards-a-Delete-!vote contributor: What's with the numerous assignments in academic institutions for students to "create a Wikipedia article"? Since when Wikipedia's criteria for article creation are the same as the criteria for academic papers? Such a practice endangers the objectivity of contributors evaluating the text as worthy of being in the encyclopaedia. I, for one, would perhaps hesitate to !vote for Deletion if that means the student's grading suffers! And we are essentially asked to do a supervising professor's job, when we assess a student's work.
- P.S. As it happens, I find the subject lacking in independent notability on the basis of reliable sources. But the issue of academic papers flooding Wikipedia is more important. We should bear in mind this, for instance. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hello. I am the creator of this article. As mentioned, I am a university student, and by no means an expert in writing encyclopedias. However, our class carefully trained with a Wikipedia representative from the Wikipedia Education Foundation (a group focused on building articles made by students). As well as help from our professor, who has a PhD in the topic, helped curate and edit our articles to meet Wikipedia standards. Since there has been issues with my particular article being granted publishing rights, she has stepped in to help me tremendously hoping to make this article go live.
- Overall, our class is simply trying to share the stories of people who have been othered in history. A few of my sources are pulled from the University Library and Library Archives at Washington University in St. Louis. However, the rest of the sources are all available online and should be accessible to the public. I am unsure why accessing the sources has been an issue. Many of these sources have public access from esteemed Universities and others are published on google books, etc.
- The original nomination for deletion was made due to the use of a primary source. This information has since been removed. My professor and I have added multiple new sources that are accessible through online databases and take the place of the primary source. As mentioned by the nominator (User:Velella), there is less emphasis on the book's notability. This was done on purpose, as we felt it was more scholarly to give facts about how the autobiography by Seaton has been used as case studies for prisons and prisoner homosexuality versus trying to make a biased claim that the book is credible. We also thought that including the credibility of the book was irrelevant to the article because there is no source usage of the book in the article any longer.
- I would love more feedback for what changes you think this article may need. My class ends very quickly so I am hoping to have an article that is able to go live. Thanks. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Was notable even before the new sources were added. Desertarun (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- As the creator of this page, thank you for your vote to keep! Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I think notability is established by improvements, and I don't see how the purely autobiographical works could themselves be notable if their subject is not. BD2412 T 03:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- As the creator of this page, thank you for your vote to keep! Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Recent sentiment has been pointing towards keeping this article, but with some questions still being discussed regarding notability/sourcing etc. An extra 7 days can't hurt to shore up consensus either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Others
- Yoruba Arts Festival (via WP:PROD on 6 September 2023)
Northern Ireland
Irish Republican Movement
- Irish Republican Movement (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)
Was never notable in the first place, although it had the potential to be at the start. There was a brief flurry of news in relation to a statement they put out, but no sources that covered the organisation in any significant depth. No publicity since that statement at all. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Terrorism, Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the references already present in the article establish notability. Even if the group is no longer active, "once notable, always notable." I seem to remember someone saying that some of the people in the handout photo that appears in several of the references weren't holding their weapons correctly, implying that this was never a serious group. I can't confirm this, though. Nonetheless, reliable sources have covered this group, which means it's notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- It was never notable, although it had the potential to be if it had actually done anything. But other than releasing a statement, they've done nothing. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland). (And remove from Template:IRAs.) Per nom, the (current) topic/subject of the title (the org which asserted this name) is not notable. And never was. The only coverage suggests that a group(?), giving itself this name, released a statement (maybe two), back in 2019/2020. And that, seemingly, is all. The coverage, of those statements, doesn't meet WP:SIRS. In which the "S" ("S"ignificant) requires "significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth". The coverage does NOT cover the subject org in any depth. At all. (For all we know the "group" could have 2 members. If even that.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The comment above mine makes a great point; once notable, always notable. Even if the group isn't as active as it used to be, there's nothing wrong with keeping it around as it provides insight into the contemporary Dissident movement.
- Castroonthemoon (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Except, as repeatedly pointed out, it was never notable in the first place. A brief flurry of news about a single statement does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. See also guidance at WP:ORGDEPTH, there has to be coverage that "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization". Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland) - Per the argument put forward by Guliolopez. I agree with Guliolopez and Kathleen's bike that sources (or rather lack of) indicate that this organisation did not ever materialise in reality. While it's supposed founding was touted, it was never actually active. One press release is not enough to justify an article. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Óglaigh na hÉireann (Real IRA splinter group), where it is already mentioned. I agree that the topic is not standalone notable, but it's better discussed at the article where it splintered from, rather than just redirected to the main article on the republican movement. -- asilvering (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Others
Scotland
Artists Anonymous Theatre Network
- Artists Anonymous Theatre Network (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 owner of the page has claimed this to be a historic no longer existing organisation and thus is outdated and irrelevant to information of the world wide web. due to its similarities with existing artist, the owner Alexander Parsonage has allowed for this deletion on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TazioLinse (talk • contribs) 15:51, 29 April 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 April 29. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 16:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Organizations, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
List of Scottish Professional Football League broadcasters
- List of Scottish Professional Football League broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are announcments and does not help to assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, United Kingdom, and Scotland. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Peatfold Burn
- Peatfold Burn (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 rare a google search returns no results, but here we are. Given this, and the fact this is merely a geographic formation, this fails WP:NPLACE by a long shot. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- comment A look at the reference given shows that the correct name of this feature is Burn of Peatfold. Using that produces a few hits, though I would tend to doubt its notability nonetheless, as for comparison we have deleted articles on German bachs of which we could only determine that they existed. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete searches for either term get few Google hits and many of the results seems to be for things around the burn rather than the burn its self. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Robert Glen
- Robert Glen (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 only reference for this stub biography of a footballer is a database entry, so this stub no longer satisfies sports notability and does not satisfy general notability. Draftification will provide six months to find significant coverage.
Draftify as nominator.Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: while I am aware of the changed notability criteria, seems a bit odd to go straight to AfD for a subject like this where the article already existed for some years under the old rules, would it not be more appropriate to tag for verification first, then move up from that if not acted on? It seems very likely this player will appear in the British Newspaper Archive and there are far more 'deserving' nominations from this era than an international player and cup winner? I have added refs that indicate his prominence, but appreciate they would not satisfy SIGCOV. Crowsus (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Absurd nomination. This player represented his country and won national competitions. If that doesn't satisfy notability then this place is a complete waste of time. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - clearly notable. 200 professional appearances in England and Scotland, a Scotland international, there is coverage out there including in Paul Smith's book about Scotland players - silly nomination. Good work by Crowsus and JM on expanding. GiantSnowman 09:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Again the Keeps make n:football arguments despite it being abolished in 2022. I struggled to find coverage of him let alone significant coverage. The book is one source (if that) meaning he fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- "I struggle to find coverage of him" - apart from the 13 refs in the article? Do you really think that a player with 200 professional appearances in 1890s/1900s will not have been mentioned in any newspapers that (shockingly!) don't appear online 130 years later? We have lost all WP:COMMONSENSE if this article is deleted. GiantSnowman 21:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- You mean the refs to stat websites? The refs to mentions in match reports? All of which don't count when it comes to passing GNG. Mentions in newspapers is irrelevant as it is sigcov that is required. Dougal18 (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Two books about the history of Hibernian FC describing Glen's career and playing style isn't significant coverage? Come off it. You just don't like articles about footballers. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Hibees has 13 hits for Glen. The making of Hibernian has one hit. Those are not sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Coverage in four published books isn't significant coverage? I'm wondering what you would consider that to be. A book about the player himself?!? Demanding that level of coverage would lead to the deletion of the vast majority of biographies on this site. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Good to know that a few sentences in a few books is now significant coverage. "Left back Bobby Glen from Renton had several international honours. Strong and clever, he was a favourite of the supporters and was recently at the top of his form." If that is sigcov then GNG should be scrapped. Dougal18 (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Coverage in four published books isn't significant coverage? I'm wondering what you would consider that to be. A book about the player himself?!? Demanding that level of coverage would lead to the deletion of the vast majority of biographies on this site. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Hibees has 13 hits for Glen. The making of Hibernian has one hit. Those are not sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Two books about the history of Hibernian FC describing Glen's career and playing style isn't significant coverage? Come off it. You just don't like articles about footballers. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- You mean the refs to stat websites? The refs to mentions in match reports? All of which don't count when it comes to passing GNG. Mentions in newspapers is irrelevant as it is sigcov that is required. Dougal18 (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- "I struggle to find coverage of him" - apart from the 13 refs in the article? Do you really think that a player with 200 professional appearances in 1890s/1900s will not have been mentioned in any newspapers that (shockingly!) don't appear online 130 years later? We have lost all WP:COMMONSENSE if this article is deleted. GiantSnowman 21:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I would strongly agree with User:GiantSnowman's and User:Jmorrison230582's points. I think it would be odd for us not to have an article about a Scotland international who clearly is covered in published sources. Dunarc (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The article has been updated, clearly notable player, easily passes WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – The Paul Smith's book It already seemed to be enough for WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:GNG, also has fine sources that attribute significant coverage. Noorullah (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Responding to Jmorrison230582, the article didn't say that his team won national competitions when I nominated it for deletion, and the nomination was not absurd. Govvy is correct that the article has been updated. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Perhaps I should have said that the Heymann criterion was to provide significant coverage in seven days, but perhaps that should be implied. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Boc Maxima
- Boc Maxima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG. Did a WP:BEFORE search and everything I found mentions the album in passing. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Scotland. Skynxnex (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Boards of Canada: Found nothing on the album. Not too surprising given "limited to 50 copies world-wide, which were handed out to friends and family" and it being two years before their first major release. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Or redirect to Boards of Canada discography#Limited-only releases. There's certainly no compelling reason to keep the article. Richard3120 (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect probably makes sense. Just not enough coverage of this album that I can see. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
St Andrews Typhoons
- St Andrews Typhoons (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)
Lacking in-depth secondary source coverage to meet the general notability guideline. Seen at NPP, moved to draftspace to allow for improvement but reverted by creator. AusLondonder (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Scotland. AusLondonder (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't realize I reverted an initial draftspace sending, I was just editing over time. What sort of sources should I add to make more credibility? There's only a few sources (university, BUIHA and the team's website) I found out to use. Should I improve in the drafter before releasing or try to expand on the existing page? Fastfads (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- They would have to be "significant coverage" to the subject, from secondary sources from multiple reputable media outlets. If such coverage doesn't exist, or consists of simple scores/stats or namedrops, an article cannot be sustained. My vote is to Redirect to the University of St Andrews article if no such sources are proffered. Ravenswing 08:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Fastfads, firstly can I say this nomination is not a reflection on your work. Wikipedia does however have requirements articles must meet to demonstrate suitability for inclusion, most importantly the general notability guideline. Please take a look at the guideline for the kind of sources we require. Thanks, AusLondonder (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've done a bit of research into the guidelines (thank you @AusLondonder and @Ravenswing for the advice and links - I see that the editorial standards of Wikipedia are higher than what was told to me in school) and spent a lot of time updating the page to what I believe would be above the minimum amount of content to reach the guidelines of general notability - and have found quite a bit of new information about the team along the way.
- Point #1: One of the main problems was a lack of secondary sources as I was mainly using the main page of the BUIHA and the team's page at phoons.net - I've now done a significant amount of research into the team and have found a ton of new information about the team entirely from secondary sources ranging from the local student newspaper to the national newspapers (BBC). There even is a video from 2014 which was someone's TV reel that gave a ton of information about the team, including interviews with the founders of the club. There's now a lot more secondary sources on there.
- Point #2: Relative to other team pages in the BUIHA (and to applications of the guidelines in general), the Typhoons are a strong pick to have their own page. Take, for example, the London Dragons which was originally my template for the start of this article. The entire page is summary, roster, awards, retired numbers and what universities are involved. The sources are all the University page, the website and the BUIHA website. Yet, I agree with Wikipedia's editors that as it remains up, it's a worthy article to keep in place in the history of British ice hockey even if it may need more sources as the note shows. While other pages like Oxford University Ice Hockey Club carries far more history and therefore sources, I find it exceptional to compare a team founded in 2011 to the team page of the most historic ice hockey club in Europe. Despite being founded so recently, they still have a shockingly deep history to the team, which brings me to the next point.
- Point #3: The Typhoons are an notable and important subject in British university ice hockey as well as in the University of St Andrews culture and history. When I started this, I figured I'd make another team page to fill one of the missing spots on the BUIHA teams list. Yet thanks to the pressure for secondary sources, I found this team is extremely notable in university life in St Andrews - and has an extremely interesting (albeit tragic history). According to University of St Andrews, there are 11,280 students at the school right now, so there is on record just under 15% of the entire school (1500 people) attending Jonny Wookey Memorial Game. While it may not have the historical importance of something like Ice Hockey Varsity Match, attendance that high shows it is a huge event for the students of St Andrews and Scotland as a whole. The only one that seems to even come close in St Andrews would be The Scottish Varsity. Considering the difference in popularity between ice hockey and rugby in Scotland, the fact that the number of people interested is this close is an interesting fact in itself. The game is worth archiving on its own but is especially worth inclusion within the context of a team page that is so important in university ice hockey as they won the championship just 2 years ago.
- Point #4: There is still significantly more content to go through. All of the sources I have posted have been from "official" newspapers and sources online, but I have not gone through the years of articles on the experience and history written by the St Andrews student newspaper "The Saint". Even right now on their front page is a new article about the experience at Jonny Wookey this year where they lost. I'm pretty busy right now (I fit in the edits and this piece in a bit of free time) but by Friday I should have a complete page with all secondary sources out there - and a pretty perfect page for Wikipedia if you allow it to stay up.
- With all of this, I feel there is plenty of evidence that this article is suitable for conclusion and meets the general notability guideline. Please check out the original article with the new additions. I hope these changes (and new sources) will convince you that this article is worth inclusion. As for me, I'm going to keep working on this page when I have time and I'll be voting Keep for this page. Fastfads (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect. Sources are exclusively non-independent (websites of BUIHA, Phoons, St Andrews, and St Andrews student newspapers) or fail NOTNEWS (news reports on a missing student). JoelleJay (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Imaan Zainab Mazari
- Imaan Zainab Mazari (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)
She fails WP:GNG as there is no sources covering her in depth. The article is created based on recentism because she just received nominal coverage due to her few days arrest and she being the daughter of a notable politician Shireen Mazari. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It seems a proper WP:BEFORE search was not conducted before nominating. As the creator of this BLP, It's natural that I prefer not to see it deleted. The BLP is well-sourced, contains no OR, and maintains a NPOV. I'll leave it to the community to decide. I can expand this page further as there's still more coverage on her, but I believe the community may agree that this BLP, in its current state, adequately demonstrates the subject meets WP:GNG. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete The article appears to rely heavily on sources that cover her in the context of recent events, particularly her arrests, rather than on her long-term significance as a human rights lawyer. The current state of the article may indeed be more appropriate for Wikinews, given its focus on recent events. Although she marginally satisfies the WP:GNG, the content is largely influenced by her brief detentions and her mother's political stature. Whereas, the criteria demand sustained and significant coverage, reflecting a subject’s lasting relevance. samee converse 02:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I find it surprising that you guys perceiving this as a RECENTISM issue. She has consistently received press coverage- both nationally and internationally- dating back as far as 2014 (see this) which indicates that she passes WP:10YT. It's not a matter of receiving temporary blip of news coverage for a single incident or event, rather- it's a compilation of several incidents. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's merely a brief mention, and even that's only in relation to her being Shireen Mazari's daughter. She states her mother had no objection to attend the protests. There is no mention of her own credentials in the source if she had any. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- My point is that she has been consistently covered in the news since 2014. In 2015 she received more press attention after being targeted by trolls on social media, a phenomenon not typically experienced by children of official or public figures in Pakistan. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- All the coverage from 2014/2015 you're referring to is primarily because she's Shireen Mazari's daughter. Reports focus on the novelty of her actions, such as voting for her mother's rival party or protesting against PTI affiliates who stormed PTV, rather than her qualifications. Perhaps she stood out as the only protestor who was child of a prominent figure on that particular day. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not implying that this 2014/2015 press coverage is alone establishes her meeting the criteria of WP:GNG. The point is, she has been consistently receiving media attention since 2014. Anyways, to establish WP:GNG, we should focus on the sources present in the BLP itself, which I believe are sufficient. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- All the coverage from 2014/2015 you're referring to is primarily because she's Shireen Mazari's daughter. Reports focus on the novelty of her actions, such as voting for her mother's rival party or protesting against PTI affiliates who stormed PTV, rather than her qualifications. Perhaps she stood out as the only protestor who was child of a prominent figure on that particular day. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- My point is that she has been consistently covered in the news since 2014. In 2015 she received more press attention after being targeted by trolls on social media, a phenomenon not typically experienced by children of official or public figures in Pakistan. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's merely a brief mention, and even that's only in relation to her being Shireen Mazari's daughter. She states her mother had no objection to attend the protests. There is no mention of her own credentials in the source if she had any. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I find it surprising that you guys perceiving this as a RECENTISM issue. She has consistently received press coverage- both nationally and internationally- dating back as far as 2014 (see this) which indicates that she passes WP:10YT. It's not a matter of receiving temporary blip of news coverage for a single incident or event, rather- it's a compilation of several incidents. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with Saqib that the sources are sufficient, and even the delete vote is acknowledging that the article meets the GNG. With general notability, sufficient sourcing, and a well-written article, what exactly is the problem here? rspεεr (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
off topic discussion
|
---|
|
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)- Keep Regardless of the reasons (be it her detentions and her activities, or her parents-as it's not a case of coverage limited only to family relations) she has received lasting media coverage (not every coverage has to be sig/in-depth), and the sources present in the article, some of them are mostly fine and can be considered sig cov - with everyone here acknowledging she meets GNG/WP:BASIC. X (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Switch Scotland
- Switch 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)
This article about a digital radio multiplex has been tagged for notability since 2012 and I'm unable to find much in the way of SIGCOV to assert notability - just articles about stations opening and closing on the multiplex signal, which are primarily about the stations and not the multiplex. There is !precedent for redirecting these articles to the article for their parent company [38]. Most of this article consists of unsourced WP:OR about stations being added, deleted and moved around on various digital radio multiplexes. Flip Format (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Flip Format (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 28 April 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
Marion Evans
- Marion Evans (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. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, United Kingdom, and Wales. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:47, 27 April 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)