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, 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.
![Archive](https://web.archive.org/web/20200202003231im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/32px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png)
watch |
- See also:
Scan for United Kingdom related AfDs
|
Contents
- 1 United Kingdom
- 1.1 NIS Jakarta
- 1.2 Modern soul
- 1.3 James Sinclair (martial artist)
- 1.4 Angharad Gatehouse
- 1.5 Nusrit Shaheen
- 1.6 Ark (charity)
- 1.7 Paul Lewis (composer)
- 1.8 Tony Nicholson (entrepreneur)
- 1.9 Wren Kitchens
- 1.10 Roger Price (television producer)
- 1.11 Joe Glasman
- 1.12 Auksė Miliukaitė
- 1.13 Phil Rawlins
- 1.14 Passle
- 1.15 Sir Horace Lamb Chair
- 1.16 Ground Floor (film)
- 1.17 Jokers' Masquerade
- 1.18 Secret Archives of the Vatican
- 1.19 Split Femur Recordings
- 1.20 Liz Houghton
- 1.21 Polly McMaster
- 1.22 Others
- 2 See also
- 3 England
- 3.1 Lewisham bus station
- 3.2 Turnpike Lane bus station
- 3.3 Marcus Rowland (author)
- 3.4 Paul Tipton
- 3.5 Zapp Scooters Limited
- 3.6 Methodist churches in Leicester
- 3.7 Nusrit Shaheen
- 3.8 Michael Tarraga
- 3.9 List of cider producers in Dorset
- 3.10 List of cider producers in Hampshire
- 3.11 Leigh Gill
- 3.12 Seamus Ryan (photographer)
- 3.13 Factor Bikes
- 3.14 James Goolnik
- 3.15 Jackie Beere
- 3.16 Tottenham Hale bus station
- 3.17 Becontree Heath bus station
- 3.18 West Midlands Higher Education Association
- 3.19 Sheila Joan Smith Professor of Immunology
- 3.20 G. I. Taylor Professor of Fluid Mechanics
- 3.21 Charlie P
- 3.22 LDShadowLady
- 3.23 Allflaws
- 3.24 List of Baptist churches in Leicester
- 3.25 Congregational Churches in Leicester
- 3.26 Others
- 4 Northern Ireland
- 5 Scotland
- 6 Wales
United Kingdom
NIS Jakarta
- NIS Jakarta ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
I am able to locate only one piece of WP:ROUTINE coverage of this organization. And it's not clear that this is a reliable source. Does not meet WP:NSCHOOLS. buidhe 22:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. buidhe 22:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. buidhe 22:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. buidhe 22:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as I also had difficulty finding sources for CORPDEPTH. JamieWhat (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Modern soul
- Modern soul ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Per WP:N and WP:NOT. A poorly written article backed by one source which is a fan made blog since 2006 (comparison). Article is confusing and wholly unnecessary. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. I looked for sources but found nothing solid. Binksternet (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
James Sinclair (martial artist)
- James Sinclair (martial artist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
A biography for a seemingly non-notable martial artist. The only sources being used in the article are from the website of the organization that he founded. Searching for additional sources only brought up similarly unreliable websites, and sales sites selling his products. I have found no coverage that would indicate that he passes the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Angharad Gatehouse
- Angharad Gatehouse ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Seems to fail notability requirements at WP:ACADEMIC; does not satisfy any of the 8 criteria listed there. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. I think that a personal chair at a UK university ("Prof Angharad Gatehouse has the Chair of Invertebrate Molecular Biology at Newcastle University" [1]) meets WP:PROF#C5. Her honorary membership in the National Italian Academy of Entomology may well pass #C3. And her Google Scholar citation counts [2] give her a clear pass of #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 with room to spare. In addition to the #C3 case made by David Eppstein, there's also her Fellowship in the Royal Society of Biology, which appears sufficiently selective to qualify as well. And I concur that #C5 is met. XOR'easter (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:PROF#C5 by her chair position, plus her research seems to pass C1 pretty cleanly. — MarkH21talk 04:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - In addition to the arguments above, she also passes WP:PROF#C2 having received a certificate of distinction from the International Congresses of Entomology (ICE) [3]. Achaea (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - Named chair position, over 14000 cites on google scholar, fellow, won international prize... Kj cheetham (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep --hroest 20:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - named chair at a large research university, and fellow of a royal society, easily passes the PROF test. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Nusrit Shaheen
- Nusrit Shaheen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
I'll be nominating this article for deletion. As above, a speedy deletion is not warranted, but the subject of the article is currently notable only for being the longest survivor of her condition, and as a result she is already mentioned on the page for that condition. I don't think a standalone article is justified; nor do I think it can be improved. --86.53.18.62 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall talk 15:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom who appears to be invoking WP:SINGLEEVENT. Ifnord (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete surviving a long time with a disease is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well, to reiterate, I think she is a notable individual. Just not enough for a standalone article. 86.53.18.62 (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SIGCOV. While I admire anyone with her kind of spirit, we are not a directory nor a web-host for every such person. Perhaps the OP/nominator intended a redirect as a solution? Bearian (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Ark (charity)
- Ark (charity) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Appears to be a non-notable organisation with content added by editors with COI issues. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Notwithstanding the shortcomings of the article as it stands, the subject is notable as a major academy chain that is part of a controversial shift in the governance and provision of education in England - it has a higher profile than some of the other academy chains with their own articles linked from the section 'Operators' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-academy_trust--Hmee2 (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Definitely notable as MAT in the UK educ system, and for philanthropy, but undoubtedly needs cleanup. --Mervyn (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Definitely notable as MAT- please read the multi-academy trust article to understand the significance of MATs. If you have time please help to address the shortcomings. We have two tags here but no explanation on the talk page about what they mean. A single user entered a list of date that is by law public published information in 2016, and this has all been checked over and reformatted since. The claim that this is an advertisement is ridiculous, the difficulty here is finding articles that are not negative. If you have further ideas on how to improve the structure, have a look at other articles in Category:Multi-academy trusts and put your suggestions on the talk page. ClemRutter (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep:, It has notability for its academy chain Alex-h (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hmee2, Alex-h, ClemRutter, Mervyn - thanks for the comments. Whilst I agree that MATs are notable, I cannot find any evidence that Ark is notable. Are there any secondary independent sources that can be added to the article? At the moment, the article only has primary sources which are not acceptable under WP:GNG Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Paul Lewis (composer)
- Paul Lewis (composer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
No sources since 2016, and I cannot find any sources that are independent and therefore indicate notability. Not to be confused with the classical pianist of the same name. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete not even close to enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - I found zero after four different searches. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Tony Nicholson (entrepreneur)
- Tony Nicholson (entrepreneur) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
No notability whatsoever; entirely promotional Sirlanz (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG and is bordering on WP:G11 levels of promotion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep after taking a look at the nomination and the current references of the article, I decided to dig up a bit too see if it really meets deletion criteria. I think there are more references present. A few references that lead me to believe that the article does satisfy the WP:GNG criteria are [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. I think a better option would instead be to edit the article and copy edit anything that seems promotional instead. --43.245.11.105 (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete seems largely promotional and I am unable to find any significant coverage in WP:RS. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Wren Kitchens
- Wren Kitchens ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
A promotion-led Wikipedia article that has links to editors who have been deleted from Wikipedia due to potential corporate tie-ins, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sala90&action=edit&redlink=1.
It is currently locked and has been for awhile due to the editing by what appear to be people connected to the company. With that in mind, I feel Wikipedia is better without such content than simply having it locked for the foreseeable future. No doubt the contributors with a conflict of interest will return, as they have done in the past when the page was unlocked. BritishGuy (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. BritishGuy (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. BritishGuy (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- SNOW Keep. The sourcing in the article already demonstrates notability. And while WP:TNT can be a reasonable delete rationale, this has been worked on by established editors quite a bit and doesn't seem overly promotional. Any existing problems in that regard are certainly fixable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Easily notable enough for an article. No good reason for deletion given in nomination. All that is relevant here is notability, not poor editing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Roger Price (television producer)
- Roger Price (television producer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
After an online search, I can’t find any reliable substantial sources that demonstrate notability. There are some passing mentions of his work but nothing substantial. NOTE: The US programme Tomorrow People has a character named Roger Price, this appears to be completely different to this producer of the UK Tomorrow People Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nothing more than passing mentions, as Shellwood has pointed out. This Price isn't right. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. TV producers are run of the mill. Nothing here indicates otherwise. 22:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Price was the creator of The Tomorrow People, not just its producer. It was a long running and popular British Television series, which was revived in the 1990s, inspired the American remake and a 2000s audio series by Big Finish Productions. Indeed I think people who are calling him a television producer are being a little disingenuous as, as well as producing and creating the series, he also wrote and co-wrote stories and directed episodes of the Tomorrow People. Cardiffbear88 mentions the character in the US TV series - my understanding is he was named as a direct tribute to the Roger Price who created the series and is the subject of this article. If deletion is decided upon it might be worth moving some of the information about Roger Price to The Tomorrow People. Dunarc (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Dunarc, this is all really useful, but do you have any secondary independent sources to back up these claims? If so could you please place them in the article so that we can all see them. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Many thanks Cardiffbear88 for a prompt response. I am afraid most of my knowledge comes from articles Cult television /SciFi magazines read a some time ago (and which I mainly looked at for article on Doctor Who and other series). I have had an awareness of The Tomorrow People, but it has never been a series I have had more than a passing interest in. There seems to be little on the internet other than his credits at IMDb (where he is down as Roger Damon Price), so I am not surprised people are having difficulty. I think Big Finish used to have more on their website when they were producing the audio series, but they lost the license to continue this. I note that the The Tomorrow People article seems to be based on material produced for the 2000s DVD releases of the series, but it also references and interview with Roger Price link here which has some useful info. There is this on Youtube, though I doubt it would be usable as a source. Possibly people with a greater interest in the series and readier access to relevant books could fill in the details - I would suggest adding this discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy as editors viewing that would be better able to help than myself (I would do this myself, but I think it is beyond my editing ability). Dunarc (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Also there is a DigitalSpy article from 2013 which mentions Price as the creator of the original UK series and the facts that an Audio series and the US series were based on it (it also mentions comics and novels which I was not aware of, but a google search reveals there were novels based on the series written by price and others). Dunarc (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Dunarc, this is all really useful, but do you have any secondary independent sources to back up these claims? If so could you please place them in the article so that we can all see them. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Joe Glasman
- Joe Glasman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
The history shows only two significant contributions to this article, created by an SPA in 2011 and then a large-scale update by an IP SPA in 2014.
None of the sources are RSs. It's self-promotional, for a career of little achievement - nothing that can justify GNG. Rayman60 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Plenty of issues with this one, including the non-independent sources used, the article being highly promotional, etc. But basically this individual appears non-notable. There is simply no SIGCOV, nor does he satisfy any of the MUSICIAN criteria. PK650 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep - winning a Clio is a big award per WP:CREATIVE. I'd like to see better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Bearian: I couldn't find reliable sourcing for the Clio. In fact, most of the awards can't be verified. PR fluff like "has received 30 international awards for his work, including Clios, Mobius and D&ADs" rings highly of paid editing, don't you think? And are the Clio awards even notable/significant? They used to be a business charging for tickets and nominations, so their relevance is questionable at best. PK650 (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Reasonable persons can disagree on the value of a Clio. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Auksė Miliukaitė
- Auksė Miliukaitė ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Can a qualified user continue this process for me? I've looked at the sources cited in the article, and searched Google books and generally online, and there just doesn't seem to be anything justifying this individual as the subject of an article. The fact that the lead specifies her to be "emerging" is borne out by the fact that she doesn't seem to have done anything that would make her really "notable" per the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. The only real achievements presented are that she had an exhibition at the Rooster Gallery, Vilnius, which is specifically for young Lithuanian artists that aren't established, and won a minor prize (unnamed) in 2007, since when it doesn't seem she's increased in notability at all. The other sites cited seem to be all based on the "young artists that may be big in the future" (collectgoodstuff.com claims to be "an inspiring platform and marketplace with a curated selection of emerging artists, new talents and unique art-related products. Our mission is to discover promising talents, work with outstanding artists on new collaborations and provide collectors with compelling artistic contents", i.e. promotion of works for their art sales site; art-bites.com gives a very similar spiel); since she hasn't yet reached that stage, nor is there any particular reason to assume that she definitely will, it seems to be putting the cart considerably before the horse to give her an article, certainly at this point. Thank you. 78.144.65.128 (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination on behalf of IP user. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete the article is largely sourced by gallery and event entries. A search found a private collection, some promotional sites and an interview. While there might be more in Lithuanian, the sources I have seen in English do not establish even weak notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete when someone is called "emerging" that generally means they are not yet notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete none of the sources establish notability; the fact that most are online galleries that sell work by the artist is suspect. Perhaps worth noting: this is one of several articles on "emerging" Lithuanian artists created by User:Gaidziukas in 2017 which have flown under the radar, all of which share the same low-quality sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gaidziukas RBWhitney12 (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - While her works in the MO Museum, I can't find any records of her having works in other major collections and I only found one piece of press coverage ("Trips to a secret painting island: a conversation with painter Auksė Miliukaitė" from the Lithuania Tribune). Appears it is WP:TOOSOON for artist. I wonder why an IP nominated this - sort of strange. Missvain (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I did a WP:BEFORE and couldn't find enough to establish that Miliukaitė passes WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Not enough to establish notability. I thought the ArtNews-Italy might be interesting, but it turns out to be a press release not SIGCOV. Netherzone (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. I think her inclusion in both the MO Museum [9] (above) and in the Lewben Art Foundation [10] is enough for WP:ARTIST 4(d). We don't actually have an article on the Lewben Art Foundation but nevertheless they appear to be notable, which is what 4(d) requires. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein:, I was ready to be swayed so I checked the Lewben Foundation out. Its information is hosted on the Lewben group site, a company "an integrated business services group whose companies provide their clients with asset and wealth management services". It seems to be a private collection housed in a company, which is not the exactly the same as a notable museum or gallery mentioned in WP:ARTIST 4 d). In face, it was only in 2015 that they decided to "present to the public for the first time part of (their) collection of contemporary international artists", at an art fair in Vilnius. I do see some other shows they have lent art to. In the end though it is a private collection; these have variable standards, based on how well they are staffed. Not sure about that one. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete art-bites.com is a website whose "primary concerns are to nurture and push our artists into new opportunities". It is owned and operated by The Rooster Gallery.galerija101.lt, I think, is the same as https://www.vdu.lt/en/about-vmu/cultural-activities/vmu-art-spaces-and-museums/gallery-101/ a university gallery. Since it's an interview and published by the gallery where she exhibited, it is not an independent source.7md.lt is an interview about a group of three painters that include Miliukaitė, but besides a number of images of her work, doesn't discuss her. The introduction mentions that the three are "still unknown".roostergallery.eu, per its own website: "represents the youngest generation." artnews.lt appears to be a press release for an exhibition at the Vytautas Magnus University Art Gallery 101 mentioned above, in 2013, when Miliukaitė was still in school. In summary, I see no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and and artist who is still very much at the beginning of her career. It's too soon for an article. Vexations (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON - this is admittedly an "emerging" young artist. No independent coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Phil Rawlins
- Phil Rawlins ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
BLP without decent references. Tells us how successful he is. Rathfelder (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability and not worth a redirect. GiantSnowman 13:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – I'm abstaining, as this is out of my jurisdiction of subject matter expert-ness, but, I did find two sources that might help y'all out:
- Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Passle
- Passle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; sourcing is in passing, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Lunchyet with no other contributions. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company described as a startup. Availability of integration for a company's toolset into other tools doesn't confer notability. Nor do the listed nominations and awards appear to be notable in themselves. Searches are finding the usual listings, as well as an interview with someone from the company [11] and quotes from research releases by the company, but these fall under the "trivial coverage" provisions at WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Sir Horace Lamb Chair
- Sir Horace Lamb Chair ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Recently established professorship. A news release from the university is neither "sources" nor "independent of the subject". Reywas92Talk 18:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 18:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 18:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge up to Department of Mathematics, University of Manchester (same should probably be done for the other 3 or so chair articles pointed to by this one). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: it seems to me Department of Mathematics, University of Manchester is already fairly long.Billlion (talk)
- Lol WP:LENGTH suggests a split at > 50 kB prose, and this has only about 8 kb of prose. A merge of all is absolutely feasible, though neither routine listings of faculty nor specific sources of funding are typically in university department articles. Reywas92Talk 10:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: it seems to me Department of Mathematics, University of Manchester is already fairly long.Billlion (talk)
- Well it would be neither of these. Academic staff (which in US are called faculty) usually have a few notable members listed. Department typically have a tiny minority who are professors (mostly Lecturers). Most departments would have no named chairs at all. So named/endowed/Regius chairs are likely to be worth a mention. Routine sources of funding of course are not going to be that notable, but that would be research councils and industry typically. Endowments are actually very rare in the UK, even if perhaps they are common in the US, and they are usually associated with an interesting historical story. For example the Beyer Chair is linked to the history and development of science and industry in Manchester, and so to the Industrial Revolution that started there. That said there is now evidence presented this chair is endowed, and it also doesnt have much history yet!Billlion (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep : First of all I think that named and endowed chairs are important, but the Beyer Chair, Fielden chair etc are long established with many highly notable holders, so there is no question in my mind that they deserve a Wikipedia page as much as for example the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics. This one however is new, and has only one holder so far. On the other hand it is still a named chair and I wonder if there is notionally some thereshold at which a named chair becomes notable?. Regius chairs have a page and te older ones have articles. I would argue that the redlinked ones at Manchester Regius_Professor#University_of_Manchester probably deserve an article (the holders are of course also highly notable). Billlion (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- "I wonder if there is notionally some thereshold at which a named chair becomes notable?" Uhhhh, the same thing as most anything else: WP:NOTABILITY...not sure why it's a hard concept that something needs independent, significant sources to be notable. Don't play games, even this department's other chairs are sourced within U of Manchester and don't compare in the slightest to that held by Isaac Newton and Stephen Hawking since the 1600s. Professorships are rarely discussed outside of their own institutions and don't WP:INHERIT notability from their holders. Reywas92Talk 19:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- There are quite a few articles about specific chairs that are quite simillar to eg Beyer Professor of Applied Mathematics, a random example Regius Professor of Forensic Medicine (Glasgow). Not a case to keep Horace Lamb, as on the evidence is not endowed and as said above has had only one holder. But in general I think long established endowed chairs with distinguished holders should be kept, and of course they appear in history books, archives, Whos Who, and papers that you would not expect to find via Google. I would be happy to see more, for example the Cavendish Chair of Physics at Leeds might be a good candidate. Billlion (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- "I wonder if there is notionally some thereshold at which a named chair becomes notable?" Uhhhh, the same thing as most anything else: WP:NOTABILITY...not sure why it's a hard concept that something needs independent, significant sources to be notable. Don't play games, even this department's other chairs are sourced within U of Manchester and don't compare in the slightest to that held by Isaac Newton and Stephen Hawking since the 1600s. Professorships are rarely discussed outside of their own institutions and don't WP:INHERIT notability from their holders. Reywas92Talk 19:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Searching found no sources that would allow this chair to pass WP:GNG or distinguish it any way among the many other endowed professorships at other institutions. It first and so far only holder, Oliver Jensen, passes WP:PROF#C5 for the chair, #C1 for well-cited works, and likely #C8 as editor of Mathematical Medicine and Biology, so if someone wants to create an article about him, we could redirect the chair title to it. Otherwise, it could be redirected to the article on the department (I would prefer not to propose this as a merge, however, as that would require the editors of the department article to determine whether the level of coverage of this chair is out of balance with the rest of the department article). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ミラP 03:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. It may be recently established, but it is certain to continue, and it is also certain that every person who ever holds it will be notable in the WP sense, since holding achair such as this defines notability according to WP:PROF. So it's certainly expandable. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- What an absurd circular argument: a professor, regardless of sources, can be automatically notable merely for holding a chair. The professorship, because its holders are automatically notable, automatically needs an article, regardless of sources. Expandable with WHAT? Merely that a new name would be added in the future? There are no independent sources on this! There are thousands and thousands of professorships that simply cannot perfunctorily have articles just because someone donated money to the school, despite the deficiency of coverage. NPROF applies to the people with a body of work and recognition beyond having an endowment pay their salary, not the chair itself. Reywas92Talk 08:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well if someone was appointed to a named chair and did not even meet the Wikipedia criterion for notability it would certainly be news worthy, and represent a scale of corruption and break down academic standards that would make the appointment of that person notable! The job description when the position is advertised goes well beyond NPROF. Billlion (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- I couldn't find an advert for the Horace Lamb chair but the person specification for teh recently advertised Beyer Chair is there
It is essential that you should
- have a track record of research in applied mathematics of the very highest quality;
- be, or have clearly demonstrated potential to become, recognised as a world-leading researcher in one or more areas of applied mathematics;
- be able to provide inspirational leadership to colleagues and research students within the applicant’s area and the wider applied mathematics community;
- have a genuine enthusiasm for, and a commitment to excellence in, teaching at both
undergraduate and postgraduate levels. It is desirable that you should
- display clear evidence of eminence and reputation within the field, such as significant
prizes, fellowships of major national academies, or editorships of the most prestigious international journals;
- have a sustained track record of excellent teaching;
- have a sustained track record of obtaining funding to support research;
- have demonstrated ability to develop and lead a successful research group; be able to serve as a role model to students and staff from a broad range of backgrounds.
- so it seems to me that the appointment committee has already assessed the candidate against something more than NPORF.Billlion (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- What in the world makes you think a job listing defines notability? Does the concept of WP:INDEPENDENT sources evade you? Of course anyone can say "We only want to hire the very best!" Reywas92Talk 19:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- A university is required to hire people against their job specification. They are required to use internal and external experts to determine if candidates meet those criteria. In a job advert they make such criteria a matter of public record. If it was a press release by a University PR officer I would agree they could (and do) say any sort of rubbish. But criteria for hiring named chairs appears in charter, statutes and ordnances. An appointment board hiring against this criteria is similar to for example a committee appointing someone to be a fellow of a learned society.Billlion (talk)
- What in the world makes you think a job listing defines notability? Does the concept of WP:INDEPENDENT sources evade you? Of course anyone can say "We only want to hire the very best!" Reywas92Talk 19:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- so it seems to me that the appointment committee has already assessed the candidate against something more than NPORF.Billlion (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Ground Floor (film)
- Ground Floor (film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
like Project Dorothy I can find no independent reliable sources writing about this and the only sources that were originally here were unreliable. Praxidicae (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Jokers' Masquerade
- Jokers' Masquerade ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Completing nomination for an IP editor, whose rationale is below (as posted at the article's talk page). I make no comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Previously nominated in 2014 for deletion without a substantial edit history.
- Creator of the page User:Ivondudley has a promotional link to this company in their bio suggesting affiliation.
- All sources in the Awards section (which would make them notable) require citation
- Previous deletion request for not being notable
- Citations reference company / Facebook page of the company which are not ["reliable sources unrelated to the organisation or product"]
- Doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:7004:af00:f12b:3014:9e23:aaea (talk • contribs) 22:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Very Weak Keep The sources for the article are quite shoddy now (2 primary, other 2 are for a unimpressive world record), but a search revealed that this company has continually caused controversy in Britain over the last few years, such as when they sold an Oscar Pistorius costume (complete with toy gun!), a psych ward costume that was condemned as rienforcing stereotypes, and were forced to surrender one of their star wars domain names to disney. I couldn't find anything supporting the unimpressive hitwise awards and will remove their mention, along with the primary sources, but I think this just barely passes WP:GNG. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷Talk💸Help out at CCI! 02:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Would appreciate further participation. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Secret Archives of the Vatican
- Secret Archives of the Vatican ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
non-notable group with junk references, see WP:Notability (music) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete No indication of importance, even their Allmusic page is rather empty. The BBC Asian radio ref looks interesting until it shows they only played one song. There may have been interviewed in the program as well but I don't think this classes as anything much and it appears there is no other significant coverage. Mattg82 (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Split Femur Recordings
- Split Femur Recordings ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
This is an article for a record label with no notable artists. The lack of noteworthy artists suggests the label is not "one of the more important indie labels" of the sort suggested by WP:MUSIC. As far as I can tell, the label only ever put seven releases out in the period 2007-2008 (see here), and none of them were by artists that were or went on to become noteworthy. Chubbles (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Liz Houghton
- Liz Houghton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
An OBE by itself is a low level awardd and has never been consideredto give 1ny , and theredoesnt seem to be anything else. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - She passes general notability guidelines. Sources include:
- "Mint Velvet: the making of a £100m brand: As Mint Velvet celebrates its 10th anniversary this month, co-founder and CEO Liz Houghton has big plans for growth with the support of its new owner." from Drapers
- "How I started a high street empire with my friends: A quick fire Q&A with Mint Velvet's Liz Houghton, the woman bringing laid back glamour to the high street." from Red (a Hearst-owned women's UK lifestyle magazine and I can't believe there is no WP article about it!)
- "How Mint Velvet Became A Wardrobe Go-To" from Vogue - click "Read More" with your ad block off and the subject is interviewed
- "Velvet underground" from The Yorkshire Post
- "‘I knew my son’s heart was out there’: why the families of organ donors would love a thank you" from The Guardian
- "The two words that helped heal a mother’s heart... thank you: After Will was killed on his bike, his organs helped save 12 people - Now, his mum tells how moving letters from the grateful families lifted her grief" from The Daily Mail
- "Liz Houghton on why following her dreams helped launch fashion business Mini Velvet" from Berkshire Life
- "Seven pieces that prove it is possible to comfort dress in style" from The Telegraph (as a subject matter expert)
- She has also been profiled in Drapers for being on their top 100 list for entrepreneurs. I will drop these sources on the talk page on the subject's article. Missvain (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment' These are either promotional interviews for her business, or for her charity. (and and I notice the similarly articles in the Daily Mail and the Guardian , two papers we usually regard as the two end of a spectrum; no source is reliable enough not to exploited for the purpose of PR. ). DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Polly McMaster
- Polly McMaster ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Like her brand, there are a lot of passing mentions but no true meaningful coverage. There are also a lot of "what's hot!" lists but otherwise nothing of substance. Praxidicae (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Bio lifted from this site, seemingly copyvio. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep There's lots of detailed coverage such as this. Andrew🐉(talk) 01:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep She passes general notability guidelines. Sources include:
- "Entrepreneurs: Suits you, madam... how to bring stylish work outfits to the high-flyers of London" from the Evening Standard
- "Welcome to The Fold's first physical store" from Drapers
- "From fintech to skincare: Meet Britain's brightest female business leaders under 35" from The Telegraph
- "My lightbulb moment: Designer Polly McMaster reveals how working in finance made her realise there was a lack of smart clothing options for women" from the Daily Mail (Yes, I know we don't always use the Daily Mail but hey, at least she got good press...)
- ""Polly McMaster: The Complete Woman" from The Telegraph
- BBC Business News Live - The Inside Track with Polly McMaster, The Fold Founder from BBC Business Live
- "Work It Out: Polly McMaster" from Harper's Bazaar
Relisting comment: to discuss sources found by User:Missvain
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, can you explain how the sources I presented above do not show the subject qualifying for general notability guidelines? Thank you! Missvain (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- For what it's worth: the Drapers source is about the brand and the interview portion with her is primary, the first Telegraph source is a trivial mention that shouldn't be used to support a claim of notability, the second one at fashion.telegraph is a puff piece about her fitness regime and product preferences, Daily Mail is deprecated and can't be used to support notability, interviews on news programs like BBC Business Live are rarely indications of notability because they are primary sources that don't involve fact-checking, and the Bazaar article is a puff interview in the vein of the second Telegraph piece. Long story short: you've got one workable source, and it's The Evening Standard. The rest of it is not GNG-worthy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, can you explain how the sources I presented above do not show the subject qualifying for general notability guidelines? Thank you! Missvain (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, per my above comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Noting here that I've removed the copyvio mentioned in comment #2 and in the process the sole source, so someone should probably add new ones if the article is (to be) kept. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Missvain has proved that sources WP:NEXIST. Hopefully someone will put them in the article. Wm335td (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Others
Categories
Deletion reviews
Miscellaneous
Proposed deletions
Redirects
Templates
See also
- Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom/Article alerts, a bot-maintained listing of a variety of changes affecting United Kingdom related pages including deletion discussions
England
Lewisham bus station
- Lewisham bus station ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Non-notable bus station. This bus station closed in 2014 and the coordinates pin point to the outside of Lewisham DLR station. There is only one source for this article which is insufficient. I propose that this article either gets merged with Lewisham#Buses and give a brief note saying that there was formerly a bus station at Lewisham but it closed in 2014 or this article should be deleted. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Turnpike Lane bus station
- Turnpike Lane bus station ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Non-notable bus station. Only 11 buses serve this bus station. There are no sources for this article and there is nothing impressive I have found that justifies keeping this article. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to Turnpike Lane tube station with which the bus station has been integrated since its construction in 1932.--Pontificalibus 11:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Marcus Rowland (author)
- Marcus Rowland (author) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
This BLP has been sourced for the preceding 14 years to a birth certificate and to a website called "victorianadventureenthusiast.com." A standard BEFORE (Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com) fails to unearth substantial additional sources. Largely composed of unsourced WP:OR, the article highly violates the privacy of a non-notable person. Chetsford (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Author of several notable works. Lacking sources is not the same as original research. Article could do with some more sources, but subject is notable. cagliost (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Under WP:NAUTHOR "notable works" logically imagines things like publications on the New York Times bestseller list or recipients of the Nobel Prize for Literature, not the third most popular RPG rulebook at GENCON '88. Chetsford (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Chetsford, you may be under the misapprehension that "notable" in this context means anything other than "meeting wikipedia's Notability policy". It doesn't. Newimpartial (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not, however, thank you for checking. Notability must be demonstrated, not simply declared. Chetsford (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- The article links to Wikipedia articles about two of his creations (Forgotten Futures and Diana: Warrior Princess) -- these have Wikipedia articles so are notable. There are also links to several notable things he contributed to. cagliost (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not, however, thank you for checking. Notability must be demonstrated, not simply declared. Chetsford (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Paul Tipton
- Paul Tipton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Reads like a CV, being used for self promotion and is almost completely unsourced. Cricket career is not notable. BobKhannaDentistOfTheYear (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a terrible article and is everything a WP:BLP shouldn't be: no inline citations, full of puffery, CV-like, making no attempt to present a balanced view of the subject. There are some external links but all these are primary sources except the cricket statistics one (which is hidden behind a paywall). If ever there was a case of WP:TNT, I think this is it. The subject might, possibly, be notable (though my searches for independent coverage just found a sea of self-promotion). However this article in its present form is irredeemable and should go. Neiltonks (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comments in theory I'd generally propose a merge to List of Cheshire County Cricket Club List A players, but a) no article exists and b) this is an odd article and he might be notable under whatever the academic notability criteria are. In theory his two List A cricket matches make him notable under NCRIC - and there's certainly a very strong argument that we know a lot more about him than we do someone such as Michael Balac (a recent AfD keep) and that he's a lot more notable than Balac. Personally I disagree with the interpretation of NCRIC as it tends to be applied, but there you go: from that perspective I would argue that his 50-odd minor counties appearances for Cheshire and 35 or so second XI appearances are much more likely to show notability than his two List A ones, but I'm sure that others will argue differently.
- Clearly the article needs to be gutted and totally re-written if it were to be kept and I can appreciate that there is a major self-promotion issue in the sources that do exist. I'd appreciate input from someone with more experience in the academic notability field as I think that's actually where the question of his notability is likely to rest. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete-this is a promotional CV, and the reliable secondary sources that would demonstrate notability aren't there. Technically meeting the very low bar of WP:NCRIC is immaterial, what's necessary is meeting WP:GNG, and that's where this puff piece fails. Reyk YO! 20:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Zapp Scooters Limited
- Zapp Scooters Limited ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
No evidence of any notability. The "Sources" are clearly all parroted press releases - some even say "source from Zapp". Searches reveal more adverts. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 09:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Velella Velella Talk 09:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Velella Velella Talk 09:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- The sources are of dubious quality. The yahoo.com source is actually not written by Yahoo! but by PA Media, which offers PR Services. Vexations (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Methodist churches in Leicester
- Methodist churches in Leicester ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Per the prior overturned deletion: the guideline WP:LISTN states "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group." Methodist churches in Leicester has not received substantial independent coverage even if individual churches may have. I do not find the lack of a current consensus on how to handle "List of Xs of Ys" reason enough to not delete. The article should be considered on its own merit as the existence of WP:OTHERSTUFF related does not mean it itself meets the requirements. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Links: first AfD, DRV for first AfD, related AfD for Baptist churches in Leicester, related AfD for Congregational churches in Leicester. — MarkH21talk 03:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: In addition to the notability of the group (i.e. not that there are sources on the individual churches), this list falls under the policy WP:NOTDIR#6: (the exceptions to
There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists
per WP:LISTN). In particular, "Methodist churches in Leicester" is no different from the given example of"restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y"
in NOTDIR#6, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the intersection of "Methodist churches" and "churches in Leicester" isa culturally significant phenomenon
(the only permissible exception in NOTDIR#6). — MarkH21talk 03:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC) - Delete Disappointing to see this here again. Wikipedia is not a directory listing every place of worship, local business, whatever – past or present – regardless of their notability. It is not appropriate to have arbitrary combinations of qualifiers, with countless combinations of denominations, geographic areas, etc., listing places merely for their existence (or prior existence) when there is notability present. We should list those churches that are in fact notable or designated as historic, not any ever that have not been discussed as a group as a directory. Reywas92Talk 05:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- This isn't Oxbow lakes in North-West Saskatchewan - the topic of Methodist churches in Leicester meets GNG. You are arguing for the current list in the article to be trimmed, which is a reasonable request but not an argument for deletion. In fact it would be easy to remove all the lists in the article and instead write prose using the existing sources because there is in-depth coverage there.----Pontificalibus 06:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- KEEP Easily passes GNG
- Administrative note: I've taken the liberty of reformatting this section to more closely follow standard AfD conventions. Generally, each top-level bullet point is one user's comment, with commentary that applies specifically to that comment indented below the bullet point. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:SALAT: This list fulfills objective as it is limited in size and topic and is not trivial and is encyclopedic and related to human knowledge
- Wikipedia:LISTPURP #1: This list fulfills requirement because the list structured around a theme and is annotated.
- Wikipedia:CSC: This list fulfills this criteria explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. The lack of a parent article in which it can be embedded does not exist and there no need or requirement for it to exist in order for the list to exist.
- Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA: This list fits this criteria because listed items fit its narrow scope and are topically relevant making it encyclopedic, comprehensive (and possibly) complete.
- Wikipedia:NOTDIR#1: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a loosely associated topic and its entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.
- Wikipedia:NOTDIR#7: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a simple listing without context information and it contains information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information added as sourced prose.
- Wikipedia:LISTN: This list fulfills this because as it is discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, items in the list do not need to be independently notable, it is not a large list, it is informational, and there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists.
- Wikipedia:Other stuff exists: The list follows the precedent of List of X churches in Y, of which there are likely hundreds, many of which are much more complex and cross-categorizational. as seen in Category:Lists of churches -- Djflem (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Of course ignoring NOTDIR#6, ignoring that LISTN explicitly defers to NOTDIR#6, ignoring that not violating any other part of NOTDIR is irrelevant, and ignoring that “Other stuff exists” is an essay. — MarkH21talk 07:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:NOTDIR#6: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, is about categories and makes no mention of lists or articles and is not applicable. You are applying a section about categories to this page, which is not a category and for which no category exists. To do so is farfetched and not a policy-based argument.Djflem (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Again, you’re completely misreading the policy. NOTDIR#6 is about articles and not categories. A cross-categorization is not necessarily a category. WP:NOTDIR literally says
I’m done seeing your blatant misreadings of WP policies. — MarkH21talk 19:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Wikipedia articles are not... Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations... Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article
- Again, you’re completely misreading the policy. NOTDIR#6 is about articles and not categories. A cross-categorization is not necessarily a category. WP:NOTDIR literally says
- This is as "culturally significant" as Anglican churches in Leicester, Baptist churches in Leicester,Catholic churches in Leicester, Congregational churches in Leicester, all which Wikipedia have determined are notable.Djflem (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia hasn’t “decided” on any of them; they’re all different; and the intersection of Anglican churches and churches in Leicester may indeed be culturally significant on its own merits because Leicester is the seat of an Anglican Diocese with an Anglican bishop, 1000 years of archdeacons (500 Roman Catholic & 500 Anglican), and an Anglican cathedral. But the Anglican cultural significance is unrelated to any potential cultural significance for the Methodist analogue. — MarkH21talk 07:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:NOTDIR#6: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, is about categories and makes no mention of lists or articles and is not applicable. You are applying a section about categories to this page, which is not a category and for which no category exists. To do so is farfetched and not a policy-based argument.Djflem (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Of course ignoring NOTDIR#6, ignoring that LISTN explicitly defers to NOTDIR#6, ignoring that not violating any other part of NOTDIR is irrelevant, and ignoring that “Other stuff exists” is an essay. — MarkH21talk 07:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm confused about the claim this has "information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information added as sourced prose." Literally the whole list is indeed just bullet-pointed names of "simple listings without context information". Some are denoted as demolished or with a random fact, but this is not prose or notable context, just a directory of non-notable places. The large majority of other lists in the category are limited to churches that are notable or historic or otherwise not just for being a directory for any that have ever existed. Many may need clean-up too though. Reywas92Talk 07:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Passes GNG, plus Wesleyan Chapel, Bishop Street and Belgrave Hall Methodist Church are two items on list have or will their own entries, which has been a determining standard on Wikipedia for lists (& one cited by yourself if I recall correctly), for satisfying lists.Djflem (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- That consensus on how to assess the notability does not exist does not mean that the consensus is to keep them all regardless. Further, this AfD itself is part of the process of creating said consensus. Lastly all consensus can change over time. As for other stuff existing, the essay you linked literally says that it's not a valid argument for keeping it. Further WP:VALINFO is again not an argument. You have made the point that it's a list. We've pointed out it doesn't meet the criteria for notability. Like I said last time, these are the barriers to being included not excluded. Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - as I've indicated elsewhere, an article on Methodist churches in Leicester is something that meets GNG because there are reliable sources that detail the history of Methodist churches specifically in Leicester (as a whole) (see, as only a couple of examples, Rimmington's article on 1918-39, and another one 1945-1980 and an extract from Victoria County History of Leicestershire on non-conforming churches. No doubt there are further sources that are not online (which I do not have time to research). Djflem is right about this meeting criteria (other than NOTDIR). To the extent there are concerns about that policy and the page being a potential directory and breaching Wikipedia standards, that can and should be addressed by the article being cleaned up (which I accept is needed), not by deletion. Bookscale (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- The Rimmington papers are self-published by the local historical society, and the County History, which has been considered RS before, is not showing significant coverage. It includes four paragraphs which is a trivial mention in something that size. It could, with other sources to show significant coverage, be useful to establish an article on non-conforming churches in Leicester. WP:ITEXISTS is not an argument for inclusion, and I've only seen two types of sources brought, those showing the different churches exist (and a few may be worthy on an article), and those showing that Methodist churches have existed. As for NOTDIR, if it can't get past that, then it fails to be what Wikipedia is for, and fails to meet the barrier for inclusion. My argument the last time and this time is that if the notability of the group cannot be established to the point that it gets an article then, whether the article is a list or prose or a haiku, it should be deleted. Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's simply wrong to discount the Rimmington papers as the "local historical society" and completely disregard them aside as reliable sources; that sort of comment really suggests you're not willing to put an open mind to this debate and what can be done to it. The Society Transactions (from where these papers are taken) are contained in a journal published by the University of Leicester, which has submission guidelines for articles, the journal is independent of the Methodist Church and the articles are thoroughly sourced.
I will say again, because AfD is not cleanup, this article can be rewritten to include the long history of Methodist churches in Leicester, where there is significant coverage and reliable sources. Bookscale (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's simply wrong to discount the Rimmington papers as the "local historical society" and completely disregard them aside as reliable sources; that sort of comment really suggests you're not willing to put an open mind to this debate and what can be done to it. The Society Transactions (from where these papers are taken) are contained in a journal published by the University of Leicester, which has submission guidelines for articles, the journal is independent of the Methodist Church and the articles are thoroughly sourced.
- The Rimmington papers are self-published by the local historical society, and the County History, which has been considered RS before, is not showing significant coverage. It includes four paragraphs which is a trivial mention in something that size. It could, with other sources to show significant coverage, be useful to establish an article on non-conforming churches in Leicester. WP:ITEXISTS is not an argument for inclusion, and I've only seen two types of sources brought, those showing the different churches exist (and a few may be worthy on an article), and those showing that Methodist churches have existed. As for NOTDIR, if it can't get past that, then it fails to be what Wikipedia is for, and fails to meet the barrier for inclusion. My argument the last time and this time is that if the notability of the group cannot be established to the point that it gets an article then, whether the article is a list or prose or a haiku, it should be deleted. Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete or Userify or at least prune it of the list -- We cannot allow this article in its present form. Nevertheless, an article or Methodism in Leicestershire or even Methodism in Leicester might well be worth having, but this is not it: except an initial paragraph, it is merely a list of churches, which will need to be maintained as churches close or merge. The right place for that is a denominational website, where the church (denomination) will have an incentive to keep it up to date. The sources found by Bookscale are RS, which could well be used in such an article. Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society is the county archaeological society, whose articles will be refereed. It is not merely a local history society, of a kind whose publications can be of very uneven quality. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment All these Leicester church lists should be merged into a List of places of worship in Leicester, which may be split by postcode if this proves to produce a list of excessive length. Leicester postcodes run from LE1 to LE9, which would give nine lists each with a clearly defined purpose. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete – or else deprecate WP:NOTDIR. I can't think of a more obvious example of NOTDIR than "List of all X in City Y". We are not a telephone book or a travel guide. Do we want to list all the pizza parlors in Leicester? All the people named Smith in Leicester? Sheesh. It's an encyclopedia. Levivich 00:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - except there is notability on Methodist Churches in Leicester and reliable sources covering that. The article can be fixed up. Bookscale (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Bookscale: Although it doesn't have "list" in its title, this article is now and always has been a list. I don't doubt that it could, instead, be an article, about the history of Methodism or maybe just Methodist churches in Leicester or Leicestershire, or some other kind of spin-off of Methodist Church of Great Britain. If It were WP:TNTed or WP:HEYed I'd consider changing my !vote on those grounds, but even if this list is deleted, I don't see why a new page with the same title couldn't be re-created and used for an article (rather than a list). Levivich 20:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- See WP:TNTTNT - deletion and recreation is not appropriate if this is a valid topic as we’d lose the page history. You are arguing here for WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.--Pontificalibus 06:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- No, I'm arguing for the page, with it's history (which is not worth keeping) to be deleted, because a list of churches doesn’t meet GNG. The topic of the history of Methodism in Leicester might meet GNG, and if so, a new article could be recreated after this one is deleted. The new article shouldn't have the history of this list. Levivich 17:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- See WP:TNTTNT - deletion and recreation is not appropriate if this is a valid topic as we’d lose the page history. You are arguing here for WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.--Pontificalibus 06:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Bookscale: Although it doesn't have "list" in its title, this article is now and always has been a list. I don't doubt that it could, instead, be an article, about the history of Methodism or maybe just Methodist churches in Leicester or Leicestershire, or some other kind of spin-off of Methodist Church of Great Britain. If It were WP:TNTed or WP:HEYed I'd consider changing my !vote on those grounds, but even if this list is deleted, I don't see why a new page with the same title couldn't be re-created and used for an article (rather than a list). Levivich 20:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - except there is notability on Methodist Churches in Leicester and reliable sources covering that. The article can be fixed up. Bookscale (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don’t see why we’d have a history article without a broader article such as the current title. In any case such a recreation would be as a direct consequence of this article’s deletion and the work done on it prior to deletion to find sources. Therefore deleting the history wouldn’t correctly attribute all those who contributed to the new article.--Pontificalibus 18:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Methodist churches in Leicester is obviously a notable topic as demonstrated by the current sourcing. All the delete !voters are viewing this as a list article and invoking NOTDIR, ignoring the notability of the topic. Deletion and recreation of a prose article is not viable because we would not preserve the edit history which contains significant contributions of sources etc. I would happily trim the current list in the article, perhaps moving it to the talk page, and begin re-working the article with additional prose and new sectioning. However I am reluctant to do that while it is still at AfD. Decide it's a notable topic already and people can get to work improving it and addressing the NOTDIR concerns.----Pontificalibus 06:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know if you include me in the list of voters, but my argument has been on the notability. The prior AfD had more on that too. The issue is that the majority of keeps last time were arguments that since the churches exist we should have this list. The deletes here are the same people just annoyed that we have to run this again after a closure that was based on the consensus that it should be deleted and left deleted, deleted and draftified, or deleted and merged (where was not determined), and we're attempting to counter the same arguments that were made last time. Methodism in Leicester may be notable, this article, which even lacking the words List of in the title is still a list of the churches is not. As I stated in the last AfD I have no issue with it being changed into something else, but the AfD is based on what it is, not what it could be if changed (not improved). Jerod Lycett (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Jerrod Lycett, except that AfD is not cleanup. If the topic is notable, and the sources exist (and both of those are right), then even if the article is in a terrible shape, it should survive AfD, except where TNT applies, and what editors here are arguing is that it's not at that point. Pontificalibus makes a valid point about the history being kept because some of the sourcing on individual churches is quite good. Bookscale (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep it does have valid information but needs more prose content but the topic is notable as a book search will show and there is no valid reason for deletion if the topic is notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Nusrit Shaheen
- Nusrit Shaheen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
I'll be nominating this article for deletion. As above, a speedy deletion is not warranted, but the subject of the article is currently notable only for being the longest survivor of her condition, and as a result she is already mentioned on the page for that condition. I don't think a standalone article is justified; nor do I think it can be improved. --86.53.18.62 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall talk 15:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom who appears to be invoking WP:SINGLEEVENT. Ifnord (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete surviving a long time with a disease is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well, to reiterate, I think she is a notable individual. Just not enough for a standalone article. 86.53.18.62 (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SIGCOV. While I admire anyone with her kind of spirit, we are not a directory nor a web-host for every such person. Perhaps the OP/nominator intended a redirect as a solution? Bearian (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Michael Tarraga
- Michael Tarraga ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
I see no evidence of notability; possibly the puurpose is to promote his self-published book. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @DGG:, no this is not an effort to promote his book. As one of the most prominent survivors of the child abuse scandal in Shirley Oaks (1 2 3) I just wanted to make his story known. Also the meat- rack that he described has been confirmed by officers to have been a hub for underage prostitution of boys (1 2). Most of the reports on him- if not all- stem from alternative media outlets and activists interviewing him. I do understand that that isn't in line with the notability standards. Are there notability standards for activists/ abuse survivors/ social media personalities? Maybe he'll meet those. He does have a following and interviews with him have been viewed hundreds of thousands of times. I did really just want to write his story down because he is a known victim of child prostitution and child abuse. I do understand if the article will get deleted... In any case I thought about whether there would be a way to establish notability criteria for "prominent victims of forced prostitution" - as in that they are uncovering the prostitution rings and trying to have them be hold accountable. I did also start the article on Virginia Roberts Giuffre, because her coming forward has made such an immense difference in the world as whole and for all survivors. She has literally changed part of the media political landscape with her bravery. She might be one of the most prominent victims of forced prostitution- her article is viewed 1.800 times a day. But there are less known victims that had Johns that were less prominent who also deserve to be heard. I already communicated with the prostitution task force on WP about that. I might discuss this further in order to have stories of advocates and survivors known... Best regards, I hope that this is now clear. This was in no way an effort at promotion. I did also omit all names first mentioned in the article. It's really just his story. As he said all prospects from the selling of the book are going towards other survivors, he's not profiting off of it.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 05:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:GNG failed. FOARP (talk) 08:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Sourcing is extremely bad for a WP:BLP, WP:GNG very much failed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge: Merging to the "alleged sexual abuse" section in Edward Heath's article, who is one of the subject's alleged abusers, may be an option. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete — insufficient coverage in reliable sources. @Dflaw4, To merge it would not be a bright idea, @DGG is very much correct! At best I’d say this is bare notability & does not satisfy WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Fair enough, Celestina007. Unfortunately I don't think the article can be sustained on its own, so I only suggested it as an alternative to scrapping the article completely, because I feel that the "delete" votes will probably prevail. Thanks for your response. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Dflaw4, thank you also for devoting time in building the encyclopedia I’ve noticed your good works across all spheres of this collaborative project.Celestina007 (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Celestina007, I got interested in this process after you AfD'd an article I had written, funnily enough! I have it as a "Draft" now, and you can access it via my profile if you like—any feedback or assistance with it is highly appreciated. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Dflaw4, sure thing, although I think it got recently rejected via the AFC process but regardless I’d my best.Celestina007 (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- That's right. I wasn't really expecting it to get through; I was more trying to gauge how far off it would be from passing notability standards. And yes, any feedback would be good, Celestina007. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Dflaw4, sure thing, although I think it got recently rejected via the AFC process but regardless I’d my best.Celestina007 (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Celestina007, I got interested in this process after you AfD'd an article I had written, funnily enough! I have it as a "Draft" now, and you can access it via my profile if you like—any feedback or assistance with it is highly appreciated. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Dflaw4, thank you also for devoting time in building the encyclopedia I’ve noticed your good works across all spheres of this collaborative project.Celestina007 (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
List of cider producers in Dorset
- List of cider producers in Dorset ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Nominating this and List of cider producers in Hampshire based on the deletions of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cider producers in Devon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cider producers in Cornwall. Nominating with concerns of WP:PHONE and that there are articles about cider in the UK and we don't need lists of producers. WikiTravel can be used for that. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete We are not a WP:DIRECTORY of the names and websites of a particular class of non-notable local businesses. Reywas92Talk 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete following on the same reasons for the articles relating to cider producers in Devon and Cornwall. No notable entries, badly sourced and the very few notable entries are already included in List of cider and perry producers in the United Kingdom. Ajf773 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
List of cider producers in Hampshire
- List of cider producers in Hampshire ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Nominating this and List of cider producers in Dorset based on the deletions of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cider producers in Devon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cider producers in Cornwall. Nominating with concerns of WP:PHONE and that there are articles about cider in the UK and we don't need lists of producers. WikiTravel can be used for that. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete We are not a WP:DIRECTORY of the names and websites of a particular class of non-notable local businesses. Reywas92Talk 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete following on the same reasons for the articles relating to cider producers in Devon and Cornwall. No notable entries, badly sourced and the very few notable entries are already included in List of cider and perry producers in the United Kingdom. Ajf773 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Leigh Gill
- Leigh Gill ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
No evidence of any notability. Even his own IMDb entry is very sparse and unsurpisingly searches reveal nothing additional. Appears to be a small part actor that few reliable sources have talked about. Probably too soon for this actor but certainly fails WP:GNG at present Velella Velella Talk 09:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Velella Velella Talk 09:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Velella Velella Talk 09:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Velella Velella Talk 09:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The article itself is unsourced but a search has turned up some sources for this actor, plus a considerable amount of discussion/criticism of the way his character is depicted in Joker, and even theories that he could factor into a future sequel. Examples: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. — Hunter Kahn 12:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Keep: He has a supporting role in Joker (2019 film), and starring roles in a few non-notable productions. With a few more sources included, I think the article could remain. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep with same reasons already listed by Dflaw4 and Hunter Kahn above. — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Seamus Ryan (photographer)
- Seamus Ryan (photographer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
The subject is clearly a skilled and successful portrait photographer, but after nine whole years in which the feeble article might have been strengthened, it's still feeble, perhaps because there's not much that can be added. (Aside, that is, from the obviously unsuitable.) Hoary (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
DeleteKeepPure advertising for a non-notable photographer.Due to the info about him having photos in the National Portrait Gallery definitely notable. Article needs a large update then to represent this. Canterbury Tail talk 15:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)- Keep he's got photos in the National Portrait Gallery[17], Museum of Fine Arts, Houston/[18], and the Worcester Art Museum[19], which I think is good enough for WP:Artist 4d.Jahaza (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment well that drastically changes things. Striking to keep then. I think having something in the NPR makes one notable. We should add such information to the article. Canterbury Tail talk 22:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Canterbury Tail, thank you for cutting junk from the article. You are of course very welcome to add information to it. (This might inspire you.) But first, do please read the attempted clarification that appears immediately below. -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Attempted clarification: We're talking here about Seamus Ryan (seamus.co.uk). He's a commercial portrait photographer, who I think is based in London. Though I don't live in Britain and wouldn't recognize most British celebs, I do recognize the people in a number of his portraits: he's certainly photographed some famous people. I believe that he has won the Taylor Wessing prize, which is quite something. However, I have no reason to think that he is the same as Seamus A. Ryan (seamusryan.com), who is based in Tunbridge Wells, is also a commercial photographer, has done portraits, but bills himself as a "Fine Art Photographer and Photography Teacher" (so capitalized). Seamus A. Ryan says: "My work is [...] in the permanent collection of the Museum of Fine Art in Houston and the Worcester Museum of Fine Art." -- Hoary (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, our man is based in central London, and sounds interesting. But it seems less and less likely that he doubles as Seamus A. Ryan. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nice finds. Interesting. Canterbury Tail talk 12:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete not enough reliable secondary indepdent 3rd party indepth sources to establish notablity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:CREATIVE. We have tended to keep artists whose work are in major world collections, regardless of other issues. If consensus has changed, I'd like to know about that and I would require a re-listing for clear word that consensus has changed. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Bearian, WP:OUTCOMES is long and I confess that I haven't read it. But I have looked through its list of contents and I don't spot anything within this that's obviously relevant here. Could you please specify? As for WP:CREATIVE, this lists four criteria. I see no evidence of meeting any of the first three. The fourth itself has four criteria; and again, I see no evidence of meeting any of the first three. The fourth: "been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums"; well, he is represented within the permanent collection of one notable gallery (aka art museum). (I trust that nobody is still confusing him with Seamus A. Ryan.) What am I overlooking? -- Hoary (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hoary, not for the first time, there's been confusion about two similarly-named artists. I don't know which is which. It's like that Internet meme of the two Spider Men. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Bearian, I think it's pretty easy. Our man is based in London, doesn't put an "A." in his name, almost always works in colour, is a commercial (and sometimes noncommercial) portraitist, and has a prize-winning portrait of Stoppard in the NPG. The other one is based in Tunbridge Wells, always puts an "A." in his name, usually works in B/W, does little portraiture, teaches courses, has prints at MFAH and Worcester. Just look at their two websites: they're easy to tell apart. -- Hoary (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Factor Bikes
- Factor Bikes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
No evidence of any notability. All refs are own web-site. Searches reveal only adverts , social media etc. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 21:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Velella Velella Talk 21:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I created this page because there was a redlink to it from the Israel Start-Up Nation page/infobox. If it makes a difference, there are a number of reviews of their bicycles as well as news stories about them on various cycling news/magazine websites.TGRFAN (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- delete Not sure its notable or not, doesn't seem to be though despite the existence of articles about them. There does seem to a lot of reviews of their products, but I'm not sure that makes them notable on its own. As the reviews seem to be very advertish and not neutral. For instance this one. Which has quotes from the CEO and seems very promotional. As well as this one. I wasn't able to find any articles specifically about the company itself per say. Just its products. So, if the article is kept and expanded it will probably just be a semi-promotional, POV suffering list of products. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
James Goolnik
- James Goolnik ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
No evidence of notability. Many dead links and searches reveal nothing else other than social media, adverts, directories, a British Dental Association blog etc. etc. The few working links are either internal to the Dentistry niche or the Daily Mail (Australia)!. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 07:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Velella Velella Talk 07:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Velella Velella Talk 07:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think the problem is that there are no sources. The problem is that the sources are buried on the fourth and fifth paged of Google and are quite old. Like this one,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1272248.stm
or this one
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/have-teeth-will-travel-bmkft69t8cd
I think the subject meets WP:GNG but the page has been written like a CV and the sources used are either primary or self-published promo. Perhaps WP:ATD is a better route? Let me take a swing at it, see if I can turn it into a proper page. 8Lizardtalk to me!!! 12:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment There's also this https://www.standard.co.uk/news/city-bonuses-fuel-boom-for-dentists-6963900.html
Interestingly, all three sources show up green at WP:RS/P. Although dead links should be fixed or removed and promotional content should be removed altogether as per WP:NOT Furthermore, if the page is overly reliant on primary sources it should be tagged accordingly.8Lizardtalk to me!!! 14:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
this page is written as a self published vanity piece. Please delete it forthwith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grotsmashah (talk • contribs) 13:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Remove Most of the articles in the sources are "advertorials", typically paid for advertisements written as editorials. Delete as almost certainly self-authored sources and hence article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.229.22 (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- CommentWhile I agree that most of the content about self-published books and various schemes and charities aren't worthy of inclusion, there is a small amount of RS from the early 00s making him borderline WP:GNG. I'm not saying the page meets WP:NBLP that would be an Indiana Jones-style leap, but it is interesting that Grotsmashah joined WP after the page was nominated and the only other delete vote comes from some random IP address and is putting forward the exact same argument. Funny that....8Lizardtalk to me!!! 21:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment He isn't noteworthy in the profession or wider public. Most in the profession would have no idea who he is, other than a small group of people who are directly involved with him through fringe organisations. It's somewhat difficult to criticise an article on anything other than the self promotional element when that is all that exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.175.49 (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Jackie Beere
- Jackie Beere ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
No decent evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, and if we had an article for every headteacher in the world, then Wikipedia would have way more articles about non-notable people! Minecrafter0271 (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable educator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, I think, like last time around, her OBE shows notablity in her field.Jahaza (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Jahaza: Can you show me one decent citation about her that's from a reliable source? --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Our article is somewhat promotional and should, if kept, be cut back. And I'm not at all convinced that OBEs and headmasters are automatically notable. But I found four reviews of her books, making a borderline case for WP:AUTHOR. The most colorful of the four is in The Guardian, which describes her Perfect Lesson as "A cynical, stupid, and deeply misguided bag of tips that is destined to make you a worse teacher." [20] But bad reviews are still reviews. I can't read [21] but it looks reliable enough. The other two are [22] and [23]. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think a CBE or upwards makes you notable, but not an OBE on its own. Head teachers need to have attracted public attention. Happy to withdraw if someone can introduce some external sources. Rathfelder (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:AUTHOR based on the reviews above. TJMSmith (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. No real accomplishments, this is basically a run of the mill educator. The certifications are fringe at best. Bad writing can be notable, but in a marginal case like this, it's a BLP violation. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Would love a bit more feedback. Anyone able to find any sources that help establish GNG? Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Tottenham Hale bus station
- Tottenham Hale bus station ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Non-notable bus station. This bus station only has four bus stands and is served by eight bus routes. There is nothing remarkable about this article or any notability to justify keeping this article. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Hardly a bus station, is more of an area outside the underground station where buses stop. Ajf773 (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's been redeveloped considerably since the photo in the article was taken.----Pontificalibus 09:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to Tottenham Hale station as it's a significant combined transport interchange, but I haven't found in-depth coverage specifically of the bus station part.----Pontificalibus 09:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - seems comparatively well-referenced for a bus station stub. Since Tottenham Hale station doesn't mention anything currently about buses I'm a bit dubious about the merge proposal. Mujinga (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep - seems to have some sources for notability (which a bus interchange would normally have very little). I'll err on the side of caution and keep. I do not support deletion - the merge to the station article is a viable alternative that should be considered first if consensus is not to keep the article. Bookscale (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to Tottenham Hale station. Not worth a standalone article and is integral to the station.Charles (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Becontree Heath bus station
- Becontree Heath bus station ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Non-notable bus station. As per https://tfl.gov.uk/bus/stop/490003764W/becontree-heath-bus-station/, only three London buses serve this bus station which make this a non-notable bus station so it should be deleted. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to Becontree Heath as a "Transport" section (as a viable alternative to deletion). Bookscale (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Looking at Google Streetview, the bus station no longer exists. A residential development is under construction on the site of the bus station and the adjacent land. A travel section in Becontree Heath might mention that there was once a bus station. --DavidCane (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
West Midlands Higher Education Association
- West Midlands Higher Education Association ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
After searching for sources for this I feel this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Even the university websites that come up in the search do not mention anything in depth about it. Mattg82 (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Sheila Joan Smith Professor of Immunology
- Sheila Joan Smith Professor of Immunology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Notability is not WP:INHERITED merely because its two holders are bluelinks; non-independent sources are from within the department/university. Reywas92Talk 04:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 04:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. The nomination is boilerplate, makes no reference to notability guidelines, and provides no evidence that the nominator has tried searching for sources as WP:BEFORE requests. Nevertheless my own searches turned up nothing in-depth and independent enough to contribute to a pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please AGF, it is really necessary to spout "Does not meet GNG", "Can't find sources" in every nomination? Yes, I searched and did not find anything. No, I'm sorry I apparently did not search as hard as you did on the Bolivar one – thanks for the note about using "chair" instead. Now if only creators could before search for sources beyond those not WP:INDEPENDENT of the topic when they create pages. Reywas92Talk 08:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:LISTN, as two or more people with enwiki articles have held this chair. ミラP 21:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not necessary, WP:LISTN says, emphasis mine, that this is just
[o]ne accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable
, and that thosethat fulfill recognized [...] navigation [...] purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability
. And please take it to only one AFD at a time. ミラP 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- "Two or more" bluelinks is not a navigational purpose superseding any expectation for independent sources covering the topic. You are twisting these words, which link to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Purposes_of_lists and clearly reduces the need for sources for pages like outlines and lists of lists, not for bestowing an article on any concept that people can theoretically use to move from one article to another. Forget the GNG and all the rest, right? It has two links, call it a list, and it's good – AFD or even ATD be excepted! We've got List of University of Cambridge people if you want navigation, or School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge#Notable academics if you want navigation, not independent-significant-coverage-free pages. Reywas92Talk 23:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not necessary, WP:LISTN says, emphasis mine, that this is just
- Keep. The chair is defining, and, altho it is new, and was formerly a perosnal chair , everyone there will always either have a wp article or be entitled to one. In practice, that makes a list worthwhile. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Question Who was Sheila Joan Smith? The first reference doesn't work for me (the archive link is to an error-message page), and the second is uninformative. I'm not convinced that a list of two people is actually useful for navigational purposes; we have those "previous / succeeded by" kind of templates for that. XOR'easter (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
G. I. Taylor Professor of Fluid Mechanics
- G. I. Taylor Professor of Fluid Mechanics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Notability is not WP:INHERITED from some of its holders being bluelinks; non-independent sources are from within the department and don't provide substantive coverage. Reywas92Talk 04:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 04:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I found and added two sources to the article, one about Batchelor fund-raising for the endowment and another about Saffman turning down the chair. I think they may be a little too in-passing for WP:GNG, but others could reasonably disagree. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to a "Legacy" section in G. I. Taylor. There's a little more to say about the professorship than it existing, but not enough to warrant a dedicated article. XOR'easter (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:LISTN, as two or more people with enwiki articles have held this chair. ミラP 21:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Reywas92: Not necessary, WP:LISTN says, emphasis mine, that this is just
[o]ne accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable
, and that thosethat fulfill recognized [...] navigation [...] purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability
. And please take it to only one AFD at a time. ミラP 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- "Two or more" bluelinks is not a navigational purpose superseding any expectation for independent sources covering the topic. You are twisting these words, which link to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Purposes_of_lists and clearly reduces the need for sources for pages like outlines and lists of lists, not for bestowing an article on any concept that people can theoretically use to move from one article to another. Forget the GNG and all the rest, right? It has two links, call it a list, and it's good – AFD or even ATD be excepted! We've got List of University of Cambridge people if you want navigation, or a list people affiliated with Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge or what have you. Reywas92Talk 23:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Reywas92: Not necessary, WP:LISTN says, emphasis mine, that this is just
- Keep. This is a position that implies unquestioned notability for every holder. There will therefore be multiple articles, and that justifies a list. If some do not yet have blue links, that's just a reminder we need to write the articles.The concept of holding the chair is a distinguishing characteristic of the highest order, as possibly the greatest academic honour in this field in the world, considering the central role of Cambridge in devlelopment of applied mathematics and related subjects. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC) .
- If this is "the greatest academic honour in this field in the world" then where are the independent sources??? Cambridge has 250 named professorships, the thousands of universities in the world have tens of thousands of endowed chairs. Anything that touches these hallowed halls has WP:INHERITED notability then? The concept that these are automatically notable is preposterous. Reywas92Talk 23:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. There may well be many endowed chairs around the world, any university could make up a name for a chair to big it up. However this one 3 out of four holders have an FRS and it was created by Batchelor the founding head of DAMPT, so among those created in to last few decades this one really has a claim to be notable. One would expect the history of a notable endowed chair to appear in news and historical sources and this one indeed does. Billlion (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Charlie P
- Charlie P ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Singer who fails notability guidelines for singers and GNG. The provided sources do not establish notability and I could not find any articles with significant coverage from reliable sources. Citrivescence (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The problem in finding additional sources may be that the subject's name is ambiguous. For instance, "It is with great sadness that the family of Charles “Charlie” P. Linden". The standard search finds nothing that meets WP:GNG and no claim at meeting WP:MUSICBIO is possible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
LDShadowLady
- LDShadowLady ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Number of viewers & rankings might qualify her but almost all the sources here are not valid. Not finding other acceptable relevant sources to demonstrate WP:GNG. Plenty of WP:OR here. Without much more sourcing this doesn't appear valid. JamesG5 (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - I was pretty skeptical myself to start here; I'm not one to think highly of YouTube streamers as being noteworthy subjects. But, a WP:BEFORE check on Google using the News filter seems to have turned up several sources which look to be potentially reliable. At least one or two call her the UK's top female gamer streamer, and there are a couple of articles specifically about her, with numerous mentions elsewhere. Some of the key ones I found:[24][25] This article needs work, but my search seems to indicate she might pass GNG. Red Phoenix talk 05:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Currently, the article is in need to a desperate rework if this article is kept as almost all sources are primary or unreliable. In regards to notability, I do not think the the subject is notable enough for a standalone article. The subject has garnered some coverage like the two dedicated articles by Evening Standard and Gazette Review ([26], [27]) as pointed out by Red Phoenix in addition to its mentions in listicles. However when applying WP:GNG how must consider the reliablity of the sources. The Evening Standard has no consensus of reliablity per WP:RSP and I am not convinced about the reliablity of Gazette Review. The reliablity aspect is especially important here as we are dealing with a WP:BLP. The other brief mentions in mostly unreliable sources (with the exception of The Guardian [28]) do not demonstrate notablity hence fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 17:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The Guardian article counts is significant coverage in a reliable source. So does ABC news, opinion of a paid editor, [29] so that passes the requirements of the general notability guidelines. She gets coverage in Daily Mail [30] and elsewhere that aren't considered reliable sources anymore apparently, but doesn't matter, you only need two reliable sources found from searching through the many Google news search results to prove she is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 17:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Dream Focus: Two brief mentions of the subject in opinion pieces in reliable sources (The Guardian and ABC News) do not constitute as significant coverage. To quote WP:GNG: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Here plainly this is the case. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 17:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- The ABC one has them doing a long interview with her. IGN translated [31] shows she was in a Minecraft game Minecraft:_Story_Mode#A_Portal_to_Mystery_(Episode_6). She gets brief mention in Marie Claire [32] "The ultimate vlogger event is coming to London for the first time" calling her "the UK’s top female gamer on YouTube". Significant is what they say not how many words they say it in. Dream Focus 18:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Dream Focus: The interview from ABC from my understanding is an informal interview with an eight-year old talking about the generational gap in entertainment with a mention of the subject which does not add any notablity. But even if it was with the subject it would not add significant coverage since WP:GNG requires coverage to be in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The brief mentions in IGN and Marie Claire also do not fulfill as significant coverage as there is not in-depth. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. The label "the UK's top female gamer on YouTube" does not automatically make the subject notable enough to warrant a separate page. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 18:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Passes the subject specific guideline for Entertainers "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.". WP:ENTERTAINER has been met so the article can be kept. Dream Focus 19:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Dream Focus: Understandably the subject has 4.9 million subscribers which is a considerable fan base. However, that guideline means they are likely to be notable and meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Currently, the subject has not passed WP:BASIC (WP:GNG) with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject hence it should be deleted. Perhaps, if there were more reliable coverage, even if more not fully in-depth, I would suggest "Keep" but currently this is certainly not the case so I still think it should be deleted due to the lack of notablity. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 21:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Notability clearly states A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. It does not have to pass both, never has, never will. I don't know why some people have trouble understanding something written that clear. Dream Focus 23:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- The infomation that informed my previous comment was from Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria. In any case, on this occassion the complete lack of significant, reliable coverage demonstrates that the subject is not notable to have a separate page. The fact the subject has a unusually high number of subscribers does not convince me otherwise. This is especially true since the current article relies heavily on primary sources and database entries and on we need to be verifable more so on a WP:BLP. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 22:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- A primary source would be the person talking about themselves. YouTube has a clear display showing how many subscribers someone has, and their system is designed so it can not be cheated these days. Brief mentions of the person in various reliable sources confirms they are a popular YouTuber. Dream Focus 19:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think we have reached an impasse becuase we fundamentally have diverging views as to what counts and contributes to notablity but it was nice discussing it with you and am glad you assumed good faith. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 11:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- A primary source would be the person talking about themselves. YouTube has a clear display showing how many subscribers someone has, and their system is designed so it can not be cheated these days. Brief mentions of the person in various reliable sources confirms they are a popular YouTuber. Dream Focus 19:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- The infomation that informed my previous comment was from Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria. In any case, on this occassion the complete lack of significant, reliable coverage demonstrates that the subject is not notable to have a separate page. The fact the subject has a unusually high number of subscribers does not convince me otherwise. This is especially true since the current article relies heavily on primary sources and database entries and on we need to be verifable more so on a WP:BLP. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 22:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Notability clearly states A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. It does not have to pass both, never has, never will. I don't know why some people have trouble understanding something written that clear. Dream Focus 23:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Dream Focus: Understandably the subject has 4.9 million subscribers which is a considerable fan base. However, that guideline means they are likely to be notable and meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Currently, the subject has not passed WP:BASIC (WP:GNG) with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject hence it should be deleted. Perhaps, if there were more reliable coverage, even if more not fully in-depth, I would suggest "Keep" but currently this is certainly not the case so I still think it should be deleted due to the lack of notablity. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 21:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Passes the subject specific guideline for Entertainers "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.". WP:ENTERTAINER has been met so the article can be kept. Dream Focus 19:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Dream Focus: The interview from ABC from my understanding is an informal interview with an eight-year old talking about the generational gap in entertainment with a mention of the subject which does not add any notablity. But even if it was with the subject it would not add significant coverage since WP:GNG requires coverage to be in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The brief mentions in IGN and Marie Claire also do not fulfill as significant coverage as there is not in-depth. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. The label "the UK's top female gamer on YouTube" does not automatically make the subject notable enough to warrant a separate page. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 18:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- The ABC one has them doing a long interview with her. IGN translated [31] shows she was in a Minecraft game Minecraft:_Story_Mode#A_Portal_to_Mystery_(Episode_6). She gets brief mention in Marie Claire [32] "The ultimate vlogger event is coming to London for the first time" calling her "the UK’s top female gamer on YouTube". Significant is what they say not how many words they say it in. Dream Focus 18:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Dream Focus: Two brief mentions of the subject in opinion pieces in reliable sources (The Guardian and ABC News) do not constitute as significant coverage. To quote WP:GNG: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Here plainly this is the case. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 17:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Allflaws
- Allflaws ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
perhaps i am missing something but it doesn't appear this band has ever or is currently notable. searching google and various music review sites gives me nothing, newspaper archives, books and magazines are the same. I don't see any major labels or charting. Fails NMUSIC. Praxidicae (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Praxidicae,
Please understand that Allflaws is an underground music act that have been releasing records since 2004 on Derelict State Records. I have just maintained this page and tried to keep to the rules and help build up my skill set on Wikipedia. Allflaws from my research definitely warranted a page and passed the criteria for notoriety and credentials. So I think it would be a shame if it was deleted. I would hope it could be modified instead and that would be a compromise. This page has been running for over ten years and I think the problem is that any articles have been put in External Links and not References. I have posted articles in the External Links section where you can see press that Allflaws has had for well over a decade. These articles should actually be in the References section as I said. They need to be moved there as that's where they should be located. That might be why you can't see any validation of notoriety. Please look at these articles in the External Links section for validation that this is a notable artist worthy of a page. I think these articles and the social media presence on Youtube, Facebook and Twitter will all reinforce this.
I am trying to find a way to get some of the links into references so you can see that this artist is credible. Please help with this? Please could you kindly remove the deletion tag and I will try moving all the articles from the External Links section into References section.
Thank you and sorry for any confusion with my article.
Here are some links to publications who have published Allflaws. Most of them are in the External Links section but need to be in References. Please have a look at them.
https://bbmlive.com/allflaws-music-video-gets-banned-from-youtube/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamyouthold (talk • contribs) 16:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
http://www.londonstreetartdesign.co.uk/new-rebel-spirit-video-from-allflaws/
http://www.aaamusic.co.uk/2012/03/16/allflaws-releasing-new-single/
http://www.supajam.com/news/story/Allflaws-Bristolian-darkness/
http://abortmag.com/2010/03/bristol-trip-hoppers-allflaws-release-new-video/
https://rdl.de/beitrag/forward-all-directions-24-september-mitternacht-allflaws-feature
https://www.reflectionsofdarkness.com/releases-news-165/12057-allflaws-release-qr-complexq-video/
https://exclaim.ca/music/article/allflaws-escaping_sanity/ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclaim!
https://www.famemagazine.co.uk/fame-recommends-allflaws/
http://regenmag.com/news/allflaws-release-new-ep/
http://thenervousbreakdown.com/gcurran/2010/11/21-questions-with-gabriel-curran/
http://flaneur.me.uk/06/new-album-from-allflaws-versus-the-soul/
http://www.prog-sphere.com/news/allflaws-release-new-album-versus-the-soul/
https://phonic.fm/2013/allflaws-announce-release-date-of-new-album-versus-the-soul/
https://afterdark.co/blog/reviews/allflaws-releasing-new-album/
https://www.nocturnal.asia/news/allflaws-set-to-release-acid-face-video/
https://www.hitzound.com/allflaws-cast-away/
http://alternation.eu/allflaws_-_black_box_here_after,id,2015,aktualnosci.html
http://www.mayhemderanged.com/e_fuse1007.pdf/
http://read.uberflip.com/i/88421-issue-44-2012/35?m4= - page 37
https://guestlist.net/newspapers - see issue 44 page 37
https://www.sputnikmusic.com/bands/Allflaws/74138/ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnikmusic
Here are some links for external Links section
https://www.allflaws.com https://www.facebook.com/Allflaws https://twitter.com/ALLFLAWS http://derelictstaterecords.co.uk/artists.html
Hope this helps
Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamyouthold (talk • contribs) 22:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't find anything to show show this meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO. While there is some coverage, as shown above, hardly any of these are either in-depth or reliable. Sorry, but this does not pass the notability criteria. — sparklism hey! 13:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I have put plenty of credible and reliable coverage above. Plus there was also old coverage which has since gone out of date which I can find again.
It just seems that this artist and this article will be unfairly thrown in the trash. For over ten years I have looked after this page and it now seems to be getting undermined, discredited and targeted. I've seen pages with far less coverage stay active. I just hope there is some justice here and someone takes time to look at the evidence. I can only hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamyouthold (talk • contribs) 16:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I have now put around 19 publication links above who have press coverage on Allflaws. Hope this can help.
- Adamyouthold, the article is not being "undermined, discredited and targeted", it is simply being assessed to see if it meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO. If you believe that these criteria are met, then please provide some evidence. At present, there are no reliable sources in the article that indicate the notability of this artist. Thanks. — sparklism hey! 07:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Sparkism, I really am finding it hard to see how these articles are not credible and reliable and do not indicate notability. There are publications from Holland, Germany, USA, UK, Canada, Asia and are doing features and interviews with Allflaws. I have now put another link above amounting to 20 publications. Once again please look through these. Thanks
- Adamyouthold, discussions are easier to read on pages like this one if you sign your posts. Thanks.
The links you give show that the artist exists, but that alone is not enough to meet the Wikipedia standard for notability. Of the 20 links you have posted, which one(s) of these would meet the Wikipedia definition of reliable sources set out at WP:RS and therefore help to meet the guidelines for inclusion through significant coverage? If you read the links I have posted this might help you show us how this artist meets the requirements for an article on Wikipedia. — sparklism hey! 13:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: The bulk of the links posted above are album release blurbs, and many amount to what's likely a lightly padded press release at best. However, this writeup [33] and this article [34] both seem to constitute independent and significant coverage of the band. I've seen shorter pieces than either pass for WP:SIGCOV, and I can't find reason to think either source is unreliable. BBM is one of Sydney's free weeklies, and Fuse has substantial history. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- While I agree that FUSE in theory would lend itself to being notable, I don't see that being the case here since it's a 3 sentence blurb. Praxidicae (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Are we looking at the same piece? I agree that it's short, but it's a couple of paragraphs long, not 3 sentences. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, its a total of 4 sentences. It is condensed into a small space, if it were typed out it would look basically like my response now. Praxidicae (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I just copy-pasted it into the editing area and you're simply incorrect. I also count 8 sentences, many of which are quite long and list off comparisons to other bands, etc. This conversation is feeling pretty pedantic at this point, so I'm going to step back and wait for others to weigh in. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, its a total of 4 sentences. It is condensed into a small space, if it were typed out it would look basically like my response now. Praxidicae (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Are we looking at the same piece? I agree that it's short, but it's a couple of paragraphs long, not 3 sentences. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- While I agree that FUSE in theory would lend itself to being notable, I don't see that being the case here since it's a 3 sentence blurb. Praxidicae (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're not looking at the right text. It's no more than a single paragraph when written in full form. It is not in depth coverage but there is absolutely no sense in quibbling over the length of it because anyone can see it is not substantial in the slightest. Praxidicae (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- The fact that the length is in debate to the point that you assume I've read the wrong review actually makes me think you aren't recognizing that the second paragraph of the writeup is still talking about Allflaws. It's the portion that provides comparisons to other acts, etc. that I believe make it of reasonable depth. Please check the source again. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think it is the same Fuse magazine. Fuse_(magazine) is a Canadian publication about 'interchange between art, media, and politics'. While the Fuse mag in this source appears to a British publication focused music, especially live music. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- The fact that the length is in debate to the point that you assume I've read the wrong review actually makes me think you aren't recognizing that the second paragraph of the writeup is still talking about Allflaws. It's the portion that provides comparisons to other acts, etc. that I believe make it of reasonable depth. Please check the source again. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're not looking at the right text. It's no more than a single paragraph when written in full form. It is not in depth coverage but there is absolutely no sense in quibbling over the length of it because anyone can see it is not substantial in the slightest. Praxidicae (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Skeletor3000 Thank you for clarifying that. I do appreciate you looking at the information and giving your opinion. I have also found this interview with US publication (The Nervous Breakdown) http://thenervousbreakdown.com/gcurran/2010/11/21-questions-with-gabriel-curran/ They Also have a Wikipedia page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nervous_Breakdown_(magazine) Adamyouthold (talk) 17:38, 44 January 2020 (UTC)
- That is an interview, not coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Praxidicae It just seems that you are being pedantic and looking for holes in this article. I think it has a enough coverage to justify being notable. I have seen pages with less coverage and they have no problems. Adamyouthold (talk) 20:07, 44 January 2020 (UTC)
- You need to learn to comment on content and not editors. I'm not being pedantic, I'm basing this on policy and consensus, Adamyouthold. Praxidicae (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
No problem Praxidicae, I am just baffled to why this page has been placed under scrutiny when it seems to meet the criteria. Adamyouthold (talk) 20:30, 44 January 2020 (UTC)
Please look at this. I have also put it into the links above. It is a well known established magazine in London called the GuestList who have interviewed and featured many well known artists from around the world. https://guestlist.net/newspapers. In issue 44 page 37 Allflaws have album of the month http://read.uberflip.com/i/88421-issue-44-2012/35?m4= Adamyouthold (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I have also put this in the links above https://www.sputnikmusic.com/bands/Allflaws/74138/ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnikmusic Adamyouthold (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
And this feature on German Radio https://rdl.de/beitrag/forward-all-directions-24-september-mitternacht-allflaws-feature - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Dreyeckland Adamyouthold (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if this is helpful. Here is some coverage in a Canadian publication Exclaim. https://exclaim.ca/music/article/allflaws-escaping_sanity/ - Here is their wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclaim Adamyouthold (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Lots of comments by the page creator. Hoping for participation on the grounds of if this article should be deleted for failing GNG per the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: One of the two sources used to back up the potential notability of this article is a piece by a non-reliable source called Fuse (not to be confused with Fuse (magazine)). So, I'm not seeing a current argument that would substantiate us retaining this article. Relisting to provide time for further comment, as per the prior relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete After looking through everything above I don't see how this band, well more of a pseudonym really (if it is a band rather than a bunch of session musicians, who are the other members?), passes WP:GNG let alone WP:NMUSIC. All of the sources are nothing more than press releases or wikt:churnalism saying he released a new album or video and [35] [36] these "reviews" don't read as in-depth critical prose. The BBM website is rather strange, if you go out of the article and onto the rest of the website I'm left with the impression that it is a glorified version of Classified advertising. If banning the video was notorious why is it only on this website? Finally no Allmusic listing page. Mattg82 (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
List of Baptist churches in Leicester
- List of Baptist churches in Leicester ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
A list with no notable entries, with little evidence of the topic being notable itself (emphasis on the "churches", not "Baptists in Leicester"). The list does not seriously fulfill any of the three purposes of WP:LISTPURP. — MarkH21talk 08:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- NOTE: related AFDs have been opened:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, opened 8 January by User:Jerodlycett and closed as delete 18 January by User:Sandstein, a decision overturned by deletion review on 22 January, with page restored by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21
- NOTE: related AFDs have been opened:
off-topic
|
---|
|
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 08:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 08:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 08:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 08:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete We are not a directory of all churches in (or no longer in) existence. Reywas92Talk 21:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Certainly fulfills the first statement made in WP:LISTPURP:The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. Article may be Wikipedia:UGLY, but Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and should be improved.Djflem (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- It really doesn’t, except in the capacity as a directory which Wikipedia is not. — MarkH21talk 22:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- WP:CSC Common selection criteria states: Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria:
- Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article.
- So, as per the nominator mention on "no notable churches" and the criteria stated in policy, this would be keep.Djflem (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- That guideline literally suggests that you not create a list in the first place, but use a parent article (i.e. Baptists in Leicester or a prose Baptist churches in Leicester). — MarkH21talk 22:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- And it literally gives two examples where it suggests lists that do fit the criteria, of which there are many, which is clearly a positive use of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.23:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Two examples which provide detailed non-directory information, unlike this article. I don’t see your point with the essay that remarks,
just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist
.Are you going to continue copying every comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester to here even after I respond to them over there? — MarkH21talk 23:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)- Yes, I am following your lead about copying & doing exactly as you are with regard to that AfD, which is a similar, but different AFD. It's about the AfD not about you. I mentioned the essay because it says: comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The two provided in the guideline are very good existing examples of annotated lists, which this has the potential to be. It is very clear Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and that issue here is Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)
- Sure, but not acknowledging the responses when reposting comments suggests that you are ignoring or dismissing the responses.Then draftify it and work on it. You’re applying essays on wiki philosophies, whereas notability guidelines and WP:NOT policies suggest that the list article shouldn’t exist. — MarkH21talk 00:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not ignoring or dismissing, I'm contesting the arguments being put forth and providing links and insight guidelines and policies that suggest this list should exist. Therefore, I quote the specific part of it, rather than just add a link. Can you address them and/or do the same? Doing so can make the discussion more productive.Djflem (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, but not acknowledging the responses when reposting comments suggests that you are ignoring or dismissing the responses.Then draftify it and work on it. You’re applying essays on wiki philosophies, whereas notability guidelines and WP:NOT policies suggest that the list article shouldn’t exist. — MarkH21talk 00:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I am following your lead about copying & doing exactly as you are with regard to that AfD, which is a similar, but different AFD. It's about the AfD not about you. I mentioned the essay because it says: comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The two provided in the guideline are very good existing examples of annotated lists, which this has the potential to be. It is very clear Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and that issue here is Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)
- Two examples which provide detailed non-directory information, unlike this article. I don’t see your point with the essay that remarks,
- And it literally gives two examples where it suggests lists that do fit the criteria, of which there are many, which is clearly a positive use of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.23:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- That guideline literally suggests that you not create a list in the first place, but use a parent article (i.e. Baptists in Leicester or a prose Baptist churches in Leicester). — MarkH21talk 22:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- I meant that you're copying the comments from the other AfD, after responses were made to it there, without acknowledging those responses forcing me to copy them here. It's not important, just a procedural thing.I don't know why you think I haven't been addressing your arguments, which are based on Wikipedia essays rather than policies or guidelines. Here are pertinent quotes from policies and guidelines. From the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, already previously linked:
Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful.
- It really doesn’t, except in the capacity as a directory which Wikipedia is not. — MarkH21talk 22:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.... Wikipedia articles are not: ... 6. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon.
- From the guideline Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists that you already previously quoted:
Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles... Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article.
- WP:NOTDIR is what the other editors are referring to when they mention
directory
in AfD. — MarkH21talk 01:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)- There are more specific things than the sweeping statements above which pertain to this AfD. The bold is mine:
- From:guidline Wikipedia:LISTPURP#1The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.
- From: guidline Wikipedia:CSC#2Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles.
- From: policy Wikipedia:NOTDIR#7. Simple listings without context information...Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose.
- From: essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE "Articles for Deletion is not cleanup"...Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet...Wikipedia has no deadline.
- Djflem (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- There are several problems with what you've attempted to use as arguments:
- Where we disagree on LISTPURP#1 is whether this list is a valuable information source; I don’t think this list is one.
- You seem to have misunderstood CSC#2: your quote from CSC#2 describes why they're created, and the guideline immediately suggests not creating the list in the following sentence.
- DIR#7 is explicitly saying that all WP lists should have context, not that all lists with context should be on WP. The WP:NOT policy rules out cases, it does not say anything about inclusion.
- Essays are individual editor opinions. In particular, SURMOUNTABLE is very very general.
- The clear superseding uncontested fact is that the article is explicitly ruled out by policy NOTDIR#6. Unless new sources demonstrate that the intersection of “Baptist churches” and “churches in Leicester”
is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon.
— MarkH21talk 01:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- There are several problems with what you've attempted to use as arguments:
- There are more specific things than the sweeping statements above which pertain to this AfD. The bold is mine:
- WP:NOTDIR is what the other editors are referring to when they mention
- Delete. Yet another directory of non-notable churches in one particular British city. Ajf773 (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Policy? Wikpedia provides for themed lists of items that would not necessarily garner a stand-alone article.Djflem (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- There is a policy that covers this WP:NOT#DIR. A really loose list of article-less churches with their rough location included. Ajf773 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Clearly a thorough Wikipedia:BEFORE has not been conducted. Otherwise descriptions with RS about the items in the list would have been added making it a annotated list. The policy cited says simple lists are not Wikipedia, but that annotated lists are Wikipedia. This has been clearly demonstrated at a similar AfD for Methodist churches in Leicester, where, indeed, information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information as sourced prose has been included.Djflem (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- So we do agree that it does not violate NOTDIR#7. It does not violate #6 either: There is no Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Even if there were a Category:Congregational churches in Leicester, that would not apply since a list of List Congregational churches in Leicester would be more than than appropriate for inclusion along with any individual item that had its own article, as is precedent and common practice, and would be included in Category:Lists of churches in England and by extension its parents. (e.g. List of GS1 country codes>Category:Lists of country codes>Category:Country codes) Djflem (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- What? NOTDIR#6 absolutely applies. This is almost identical to the situation described.NOTDIR#6 is clearly about articles, since it says
Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article
(bolding is mine). This article is the intersection of Category:Churches in Leicester and Category:Baptist churches. It's almost identical to the given example"restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y"
in NOTDIR#6. — MarkH21talk 09:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- What? NOTDIR#6 absolutely applies. This is almost identical to the situation described.NOTDIR#6 is clearly about articles, since it says
- Can you cite the specific part of Wikipedia:Overcategorization to which you make reference when citing WP:DIR#6:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. You seem to be suggesting that the following lists, similar in title & scope, and other like, should be deleted. They appear to be very encyclopedic:
- List of demolished churches in the City of London,
- List of Catholic churches in the United States,
- List of Catholic churches in India
- List of new churches by George Gilbert Scott in the English Midlands
- List of new churches by George Gilbert Scott in the East of England
- List of Catholic churches in Salvador, Bahia
- List of Anglican churches in Melbourne
- List of new churches by George Gilbert Scott in the English Midlands
- List of churches destroyed in the Great Fire of London and not rebuilt
- List of Church of England churches in Thurrock
- Greek Orthodox churches in New South Wales
- List of Coptic Orthodox churches in Australia
- List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Southeast England
- List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the East of England
- List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the English Midlands
- List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Northern England
- List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Southwest England
- Policy? Wikpedia provides for themed lists of items that would not necessarily garner a stand-alone article.Djflem (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Would the consolidation of List of Baptist churches in Leicester, Congregational churches in Leicester, and Methodist churches in Leicester, etc. into Churches in Leicester, or List of churches in Leicester (w/ appropriate demomination sub-headers) alleviate your concerns about what you perceive as non-encyclopedic cross-categorization? I believe it would be too long, but that would address the issue, wouldn't it? Djflem (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I never made any reference to overcategorization, since this again isn’t a category. Several of those, such as Catholic churches in the United States, are indeed
culturally significant phenomenon
as accepted by NOTDIR#6. Some others maybe shouldn’t have their own articles either. Drawing up a list of other cross-categorizations and asking for comparisons is an exercise in futility. AfD is not the place for “oh but this other article exists!” As you also point out, NOTDIR#6 allows for encyclopedic cross-categorization. This is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization.There’s nothing more to really debate if one can’t demonstrate that this particular class of churches in Leicester is culturally significant.An article on Churches in Leicester is probably fine. — MarkH21talk 20:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC) - The Australian lists are directories like this one and should also be deleted. The rest are limited to churches that are either notable enough to have articles or are designated historic buildings. We should definitely have lists for notable and historic churches, we should not have lists merely to be a directory of all places of worship. A Churches in Leicester article should be limited to notable ones. Reywas92Talk 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no requirement that items on a list be notable.WP:CSC Common selection criteria states: Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria:
- Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles...Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. As there is no parent article, this list should stand as is.Djflem (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I never made any reference to overcategorization, since this again isn’t a category. Several of those, such as Catholic churches in the United States, are indeed
- Would the consolidation of List of Baptist churches in Leicester, Congregational churches in Leicester, and Methodist churches in Leicester, etc. into Churches in Leicester, or List of churches in Leicester (w/ appropriate demomination sub-headers) alleviate your concerns about what you perceive as non-encyclopedic cross-categorization? I believe it would be too long, but that would address the issue, wouldn't it? Djflem (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep This is clearly a useful encyclopedic list and meets WP:LISTPURP. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- But it also violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Reywas92Talk 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please see discussion above and explain what particular part of the policy to which you are referring, because your claim seems to be invalid.Djflem (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Probably WP:NOTDIR#6 once again:
Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.
Pinging: @Reywas92:. — MarkH21talk 07:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC) - Yes, that per MarkH, as well as "Simple listings without context information" and WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. These generic facilities do not need to be listed merely because they exist. There are more than 40,000 churches in the UK, more than there are pubs, and it is not Wikipedia's place to list them all, even when split into articles by city and denomination. Reywas92Talk 08:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Probably WP:NOTDIR#6 once again:
- Please see discussion above and explain what particular part of the policy to which you are referring, because your claim seems to be invalid.Djflem (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Baptist churches for the same reasons as given already in the AFD on Methodist churches in Leicester. Surely some of these are list-item notable. It does not require an AFD (and I think opening an AFD is unhelpful, especially without giving notice elsewhere) to propose a merge. I SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE ASSERTIONS ABOVE THAT NONE OF THE ITEMS ARE NOTABLE OR LIST-ITEM-NOTABLE. I also do not believe that religion is "special" in Leicester and oppose creating a merged article about all types of churches in Leicester. (This is a copy of my comment at the Congregational churches AFD. This is stupid, having 3 AFDs, rather than letting one conclude and take your cue from that. The Methodist one is heading towards Merge, I think.) --Doncram (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- 1) This wasn't a proposed merge. 2) There is no need to open AfDs sequentially after others conclude; it is perfectly acceptable to open multiple related AfDs that are not clear-cut cases for WP:MULTIAFD. — MarkH21talk 05:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, IMO you have not understood the discussion at the Methodist one. Right, you are not proposing merge yourself, but there is no way this should be outright deleted because there is good alternative to deletion available (merge). If you would have let it conclude, there would be no need for other AFDs. Further general discussion about AFD behavior, not above content, should be done at Talk page of one of these AFDs with notice given at the other Talk pages. Discussion between MarkH21 and myself can occur at my Talk page, where MarkH21 did open a section, expressing their objection to my bolded notice towards top of this AFD. Happy to discuss it further there. --Doncram (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I argued for a merge at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, which has properly referenced material worth merging. I do think that outright deletion is the correct outcome for this article because there is no properly referenced material worth merging. — MarkH21talk 07:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, IMO you have not understood the discussion at the Methodist one. Right, you are not proposing merge yourself, but there is no way this should be outright deleted because there is good alternative to deletion available (merge). If you would have let it conclude, there would be no need for other AFDs. Further general discussion about AFD behavior, not above content, should be done at Talk page of one of these AFDs with notice given at the other Talk pages. Discussion between MarkH21 and myself can occur at my Talk page, where MarkH21 did open a section, expressing their objection to my bolded notice towards top of this AFD. Happy to discuss it further there. --Doncram (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- 1) This wasn't a proposed merge. 2) There is no need to open AfDs sequentially after others conclude; it is perfectly acceptable to open multiple related AfDs that are not clear-cut cases for WP:MULTIAFD. — MarkH21talk 05:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sez you. The Methodist AFD sort of proves that editor attention can round up sources on churches in Leicester, and that some will turn out to be notable. Editor fatigue causes less info to emerge on this one about Baptist ones; that is the only difference here. Merge the ones that can be shown to be notable (or merge them all and let editors at the List of Baptist churches decide to delete all or most); leave a redirect behind with edit history intact so later editors can do more research on others. The Baptist churches have more commonality with the Baptist churches elsewhere in England (like the Methodist ones which were visited by John Wesley have that in common), the significant Baptist churches are sensibly discussed together (perhaps noting which ones were visited by John the Baptist), not with hodgepodge of other church types in Leicester. Merge to the list of churches of same denomination in England, not to some false topic (no reader interest, little commonality) of all churches in Leicester; we don't want to start a zillion "all churches in city X" articles wherever there are a few that are notable. I do resent having to write this out in multiple parallel AFDs. --Doncram (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, merge-able information can be added to any AfD during the course of the actual discussion, but one shouldn't argue for a merge before anything worth merging is in the article. I don't doubt that some Baptist church in Leicester could be notable and belong in another article. If that isn't added to this article before the AfD closes, deletion will not prevent that from being added to the correct article afterwards. If you look at the article right now, there is no referenced content worth merging. — MarkH21talk 08:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- You're agreeing that some of these are likely to be notable. I and others are not wanting to play game now of pulling up info right now for you in multiple AFDs, and actually sources brought up in some of the other AFDs probably provide info about some of the Baptist ones. As we've discussed elsewhere wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP but you are explicitly acting like it is for cleanup. You're ignoring fact that outright deletion would remove the candidate list of churches which might be notable (individually, or list-item-wise), that some other editor thought were notable, and would maybe delete some sources and some context. The existence/closure of the AFD should be noted at the merger target article, and future editors can find their way to the candidate list even if it is merged/redirected. We are obligated to consider alternatives for deletion and there is this good one here, so there is no way this should be outright deleted. --Doncram (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, merge-able information can be added to any AfD during the course of the actual discussion, but one shouldn't argue for a merge before anything worth merging is in the article. I don't doubt that some Baptist church in Leicester could be notable and belong in another article. If that isn't added to this article before the AfD closes, deletion will not prevent that from being added to the correct article afterwards. If you look at the article right now, there is no referenced content worth merging. — MarkH21talk 08:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sez you. The Methodist AFD sort of proves that editor attention can round up sources on churches in Leicester, and that some will turn out to be notable. Editor fatigue causes less info to emerge on this one about Baptist ones; that is the only difference here. Merge the ones that can be shown to be notable (or merge them all and let editors at the List of Baptist churches decide to delete all or most); leave a redirect behind with edit history intact so later editors can do more research on others. The Baptist churches have more commonality with the Baptist churches elsewhere in England (like the Methodist ones which were visited by John Wesley have that in common), the significant Baptist churches are sensibly discussed together (perhaps noting which ones were visited by John the Baptist), not with hodgepodge of other church types in Leicester. Merge to the list of churches of same denomination in England, not to some false topic (no reader interest, little commonality) of all churches in Leicester; we don't want to start a zillion "all churches in city X" articles wherever there are a few that are notable. I do resent having to write this out in multiple parallel AFDs. --Doncram (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:HEY since the initation of AfD, the list has been worked on. To be considered (bold mine)
- Wikipedia:SALAT: This list fulfills objective as it is limited in size and topic and is not trivial and is encyclopedic and related to human knowledge
- Wikipedia:LISTPURP #1: This list fulfills requirement because the list structured around a theme and is annotated.
- Wikipedia:CSC: This list fulfills this criteria explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. The lack of a parent article in which it can be embedded does not exist and there no need or requirement for it to exist in order for the list to exist.
- Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA: This list fits this criteria because listed items fit its narrow scope and are topically relevant making it encyclopedic, comprehensive (and possibly) complete.
- Wikipedia:NOTDIR#1: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a loosely associated topic and its entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.
- Wikipedia:NOTDIR#7: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a simple listing without context information and it contains information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information added as sourced prose.
- Wikipedia:LISTN: This list fulfills this because as it is discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, items in the list do not need to be independently notable, it is not a large list, it is informational, and there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists.
- Wikipedia:Other stuff exists: The list follows the precedent of List of X churches in Y, of which there are likely hundreds, many of which are much more complex and cross-categorizational. as seen in Category:Lists of churches
Djflem (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Draftify for improvements According to WP:GNG, it is appropriate or things of the same sort that are not sufficiently notable for a separate article to be covered in a list--an analogy very familiar to me is the many articles on "Schools in..." . Once draftified, the first step is to add some documentation for each of the items listed, which should easily be possible, for hte potential sources are given in the bottom on the list (plus local newspapers). Then, try to expand the sections, it should be possible to add at least dates and locations and first minister for every one of them. Then for any that do seem to meet notability -- and some may if only because of their buildings, as is frequently the case for articles on churches, expand those to articles. The only merge that makes sense to me, is a combined list, for Churches in Leicester. Most of the list will probably be Anglican churches, of which some are certainly old enough to be notable.. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- The article as it stands is in more than satisfactory shape (format & refs) to remain published in main space, where it will be seen & invite improvements by more editors, while regulation to draft will hinder that process by hiding it from potential contbutorsDjflem (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - I agree with Djflem that the article does not contravene any of the WP:NOT categories that would make the inclusion of this material unsuitable for a list article. Lists of churches for a city are appropriate for a Wikipedia and are not a "directory". The article needs significant cleanup but that's not the purpose of AfD. Bookscale (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- And just to cover off everything, I believe the churches in Leicester have been discussed by multiple reliable sources. There are some in the article, and there are likely to be others, for example, Rimmington's helpful articles (another one, and another one in a different publication: Rimmington, G. "The Baptist churches and society in Leicestershire, 1951-1971." Local Historian 39 (2009): 109-21, etc.. Bookscale (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:LISTN Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. and this group is not notable. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as this topic has coverage in multiple reliabls sources as shown in the references and sources sections of the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The topic easily passes WP:LISTN by virtue of detailed coverage in sources such as the relevant volume of the Victoria County History. As the list provides both information and a basis for future development, it satisfies WP:LISTPURP too and the nomination's contrary claim is false. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as a tightly defined, reliably sourced list.IceFishing (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - these lists could all be merged into List of places of worship in Leicester - q.v. List of places of worship in Tonbridge and Malling et al. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep rather than merge; combining all the city's lists of different religions' premises/congregations into Places of worship in Leicester would result in a very long and unweieldy page. – Fayenatic London 10:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep or possibly merge into Places of worship in Leicester. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Congregational Churches in Leicester
NOTE: Congregational Churches in Leicester has been moved to Congregational churches in Leicester per MOS:AT
- Congregational Churches in Leicester ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
A list with no notable entries, with little evidence of the topic being notable itself (emphasis on the "churches", not "Congregationalism in Leicester"). The list does not seriously fulfill any of the three purposes of WP:LISTPURP. — MarkH21talk 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- NOTE: related AFDs have been opened:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, opened 8 January by User:Jerodlycett and closed as delete 18 January by User:Sandstein, a decision overturned by deletion review on 29 January, with page restored by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21
- --Doncram (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- NOTE: related AFDs have been opened:
off-topic
|
---|
|
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 08:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. No notable entries. Also WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete We are not a directory of all churches in (or no longer in) existence. Reywas92Talk 21:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
KeepCertainly fulfills the first statement made in WP:LISTPURP:The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. Article may be Wikipedia:UGLY, but Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and should be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)
- It really doesn’t, except in the capacity as a directory which Wikipedia is not. — MarkH21talk 22:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- How does it not really?Djflem (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- The only information value here is as a directory of Methodist churches. That’s not valuable or an accepted reason per WP:NOTDIR. — MarkH21talk 23:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not valuable is a Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE IT argument. Wikipedia:NOTDIR says that Wikipedia articles are not "Simple listings" without context information and that information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. There is room in this article for adding prose to annotated list.Djflem (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- The only information value here is as a directory of Methodist churches. That’s not valuable or an accepted reason per WP:NOTDIR. — MarkH21talk 23:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- How does it not really?Djflem (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- It really doesn’t, except in the capacity as a directory which Wikipedia is not. — MarkH21talk 22:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep and Rename List of Congregational churches in Leicester, per WP:CSC Common selection criteria states: Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria:
- Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article.
- So, as per the nominator and another contributor's "no notable entries", which exactly fits the criteria stated in policy, this would be keep.Djflem (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- That guideline literally suggests that you not create a list in the first place, but use a parent article (i.e. Congregationalism in Leicester or a prose Congregational churches in Leicester). — MarkH21talk 23:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- And it literally gives two examples where it suggests lists that do fit the criteria, of which there are many, which is clearly a positive use of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.Djflem (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Two examples which provide detailed non-directory information, unlike this article. I don’t see your point with the essay that remarks,
just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist
. — MarkH21talk 23:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)- I mentioned it because it says: comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The two provided in the guideline are very good existing examples of annotated lists, which this has the potential to be. It is very clear Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and that issue here is Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)
- Two examples which provide detailed non-directory information, unlike this article. I don’t see your point with the essay that remarks,
- And it literally gives two examples where it suggests lists that do fit the criteria, of which there are many, which is clearly a positive use of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.Djflem (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Since quotes were requested in the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, here are some from policies and guidelines.From the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, already previously linked:
Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful.
- That guideline literally suggests that you not create a list in the first place, but use a parent article (i.e. Congregationalism in Leicester or a prose Congregational churches in Leicester). — MarkH21talk 23:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.... Wikipedia articles are not: ... 6. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon.
- From the guideline Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists that you already previously quoted:
Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles... Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article.
- WP:NOTDIR is what the other editors are referring to when they mention
directory
in AfD. — MarkH21talk 01:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)- There are more specific considerations that pertain to this AfD than the broad sweeping statements above. The bold is mine:
- From: guideline Wikipedia:LISTPURP#1The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.
- From: guideline Wikipedia:CSC#2Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles.
- From: policy Wikipedia:NOTDIR#7. Simple listings without context information...Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose.
- From: essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE "Articles for Deletion is not cleanup"...Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet...Wikipedia has no deadline.
- Any specific relevant, detailed, pertinent quotes that you feel are relevant are welcome. Keep in mind that "valuable/useful" information is subjective, there is no policy that any item on a list has to be notable, and NOT DIR provides for lists with prose explanations of its items.Djflem (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- There are several problems with what you've attempted to use as arguments:
- Sure, where we disagree on the MOS guideline LISTPURP#1 is whether this list is a valuable information source; I don’t think this list is one.
- You seem to have misunderstood CSC#2: your quote from CSC#2 describes why they're created, and the guideline immediately suggests not creating the list in the following sentence.
- DIR#7 is explicitly saying that all WP lists should have context, not that all lists with context should be on WP. The WP:NOT policy rules out cases, it does not say anything about inclusion.
- Essays are individual editor opinions. In particular, SURMOUNTABLE is very very general.
- The clear superseding uncontested fact is that the article is explicitly ruled out by policy NOTDIR#6. Unless new sources demonstrate that the intersection of “Congregational churches” and “churches in Leicester”
is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkH21 (talk • contribs) 02:07, January 13, 2020 (UTC)
- There are several problems with what you've attempted to use as arguments:
- There are more specific considerations that pertain to this AfD than the broad sweeping statements above. The bold is mine:
- WP:NOTDIR is what the other editors are referring to when they mention
Sub-discussion on WP:CSC#2
|
---|
|
Sub-discussion on WP:NOTDIR#7
|
---|
|
Sub-discussion on WP:NOTDIR#6
|
---|
There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.
|
- Merge to List of Congregational churches for the same reasons as given already in the AFD on Methodist churches in Leicester. Surely some of these are list-item notable. It does not require an AFD (and I think opening an AFD is unhelpful, especially without giving notice elsewhere) to propose a merge. I SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE ASSERTIONS ABOVE THAT NONE OF THE ITEMS ARE NOTABLE OR LIST-ITEM-NOTABLE. I also do not believe that religion is "special" in Leicester and oppose creating a merged article about all types of churches in Leicester. --Doncram (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- 1) This wasn't a proposed merge. 2) There is no need to open AfDs sequentially after others conclude; it is perfectly acceptable to open multiple related AfDs that are not clear-cut cases for WP:MULTIAFD. — MarkH21talk 05:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- The Methodist AFD sort of proves that editor attention can round up sources on churches in Leicester, and that some will turn out to be notable. Editor fatigue causes less info to emerge on this one about Congregational ones; that is the only difference here. Merge the ones that can be shown to be notable (or merge them all and let editors at the List of Congregational churches decide to delete all or most); leave a redirect behind with edit history intact so later editors can do more research on others. The Congregational churches have more commonality with the Congregational churches elsewhere in England (like the Methodist ones which were visited by John Wesley have that in common), the significant Congregational churches are sensibly discussed together, not with hodgepodge of other church types in Leicester. Merge to the list of churches of same denomination in England, not to some false topic (no reader interest, little commonality) of all churches in Leicester; we don't want to start a zillion "all churches in city X" articles wherever there are a few that are notable. I do resent having to write this out in multiple parallel AFDs. --Doncram (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- [In the parallel Baptist AFD, MarkH21 replied as follows, and I gave further reply below. The duplication is aggravating, but I think the deletion nominator wants us to copy over the same stuff to each AFD, but with emphasis not to copy selective passages, but rather to copy over entire exchanges. [Update: I am notified they did not want stuff copied over; i misunderstood their objection to stuff copied which did not include back-and-forth, as worse. Anyhow, points made here are relevant for this AFD. Don't edit my comments.] --Doncram (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)] --Doncram (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC):
- Other's comment:
Sure, merge-able information can be added to any AfD during the course of the actual discussion, but one shouldn't argue for a merge before anything worth merging is in the article. I don't doubt that some Baptist church in Leicester could be notable and belong in another article. If that isn't added to this article before the AfD closes, deletion will not prevent that from being added to the correct article afterwards. If you look at the article right now, there is no referenced content worth merging. — MarkH21talk 08:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- My reply:
You're agreeing that some of these are likely to be notable. I and others are not wanting to play game now of pulling up info right now for you in multiple AFDs, and actually sources brought up in some of the other AFDs probably provide info about some of the Baptist [or Congregational] ones. As we've discussed elsewhere wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP but you are explicitly acting like it is for cleanup. You're ignoring fact that outright deletion would remove the candidate list of churches which might be notable (individually, or list-item-wise), that some other editor thought were notable, and would maybe delete some sources and some context. The existence/closure of the AFD should be noted at the merger target article, and future editors can find their way to the candidate list even if it is merged/redirected. We are obligated to consider alternatives for deletion and there is this good one here, so there is no way this should be outright deleted. --Doncram (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- My comment here was deleted and I have now restored it; it is relevant to this AFD too. --Doncram (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Because you copied my comment without quotes before, as if I made the comment here myself, I reverted it. You insist on me repeating myself. My arguments have nothing to do with AFDISFORCLEANUP which I agree would be wrong. You seem to have misunderstood my point. Of course, a BEFORE search and referenced material not in the article is the basis of "keep" vs "not keep". My point was that if a topic is already deemed "not keep" then the debate between "delete" and "merge" is about whether there is referenced merge-able material in the existing article. In these particular cases, I do not agree that "Congregational churches in Leicester" is
nota notable subject – that's why I then focused on merge-able content in the article. You seemed to agree that you misunderstood on your talk page. — MarkH21talk 17:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Because you copied my comment without quotes before, as if I made the comment here myself, I reverted it. You insist on me repeating myself. My arguments have nothing to do with AFDISFORCLEANUP which I agree would be wrong. You seem to have misunderstood my point. Of course, a BEFORE search and referenced material not in the article is the basis of "keep" vs "not keep". My point was that if a topic is already deemed "not keep" then the debate between "delete" and "merge" is about whether there is referenced merge-able material in the existing article. In these particular cases, I do not agree that "Congregational churches in Leicester" is
- Other's comment:
- [In the parallel Baptist AFD, MarkH21 replied as follows, and I gave further reply below. The duplication is aggravating, but I think the deletion nominator wants us to copy over the same stuff to each AFD, but with emphasis not to copy selective passages, but rather to copy over entire exchanges. [Update: I am notified they did not want stuff copied over; i misunderstood their objection to stuff copied which did not include back-and-forth, as worse. Anyhow, points made here are relevant for this AFD. Don't edit my comments.] --Doncram (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)] --Doncram (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC):
- The Methodist AFD sort of proves that editor attention can round up sources on churches in Leicester, and that some will turn out to be notable. Editor fatigue causes less info to emerge on this one about Congregational ones; that is the only difference here. Merge the ones that can be shown to be notable (or merge them all and let editors at the List of Congregational churches decide to delete all or most); leave a redirect behind with edit history intact so later editors can do more research on others. The Congregational churches have more commonality with the Congregational churches elsewhere in England (like the Methodist ones which were visited by John Wesley have that in common), the significant Congregational churches are sensibly discussed together, not with hodgepodge of other church types in Leicester. Merge to the list of churches of same denomination in England, not to some false topic (no reader interest, little commonality) of all churches in Leicester; we don't want to start a zillion "all churches in city X" articles wherever there are a few that are notable. I do resent having to write this out in multiple parallel AFDs. --Doncram (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- 1) This wasn't a proposed merge. 2) There is no need to open AfDs sequentially after others conclude; it is perfectly acceptable to open multiple related AfDs that are not clear-cut cases for WP:MULTIAFD. — MarkH21talk 05:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
*Delete/partial merge Wikipedia is not a directory of every house of worship in every city, most of which are quite unremarkable. Only those that are notable or historic should be listed. Reywas92Talk 07:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Have (temporarily) struck the above by Reywas92 as double-dipping is not permitted in AfD discussions. Please self-edit: strike as you see fit.Djflem (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- You don't need to strike the entire comment. Pinging @Reywas92:. — MarkH21talk 08:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- My mistake, there are three of these lists up and I missed that I already voted here after commenting on the others. Reywas92Talk 08:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please refer to to the discussion and specify your policy based reasons, otherwise the comment is Wikipedia:VAGUEWAVE & Wikipedia:JUSTNOTNOTABLEDjflem (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Have (temporarily) struck the above by Reywas92 as double-dipping is not permitted in AfD discussions. Please self-edit: strike as you see fit.Djflem (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
NOTE: Congregational Churches in Leicester has been moved to Congregational churches in Leicester per MOS:AT
- Draftify for improvements According to WP:GNG, it is appropriate or things of the same sort that are not sufficiently notable for a separate article to be covered in a list--an analogy very familiar to me is the many articles on "Schools in..." . Once draftified, the first step is to add some documentation for each of the items listed, which should easily be possible, for hte potential sources are given in the bottom on the list (plus local newspapers). Then, try to expand the sections, it should be possible to add at least dates and locations and first minister for every one of them. Then for any that do seem to meet notability -- and some may if only because of their buildings, as is frequently the case for articles on churches, expand those to articles. The only merge that makes sense to me, is a combined list, for Churches in Leicester. Most of the list will probably be Anglican churches, of which some are certainly old enough to be notable.. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:LISTN Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. and this group is not itself notable. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - the debate on this page seems to be whether the page meets WP:LIST. I consider that it does - the sources currently in the aritcle indicate there have been plenty of books, etc. written on congregational churches in Leicester itself that contitute reliable sources, and this meets the criteria in WP:LISTN - ie.:
One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.
- And to satisfy those who think there hasn't been enough discussion of reliable sources, there are plenty in the notes to the article already (even though they need to be better incorporated into the article itself), and a quick check of sources indicates that there is likely to be other sources discusisng congregational churches in Leicester itself and their effect on society, e.g. Rimmington's helpful set of historical articles such as this one.
- Yes, the article is a mess and needs significant cleanup, but that is not a reason to delete. It should be kept in good faith to allow improvement. At worst, the article should be draftified and it should be specifically noted in the closure that the editor is allowed to redraft. Bookscale (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as there are plenty of reliable sources covering this topic as shown in the sources section of the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The topic easily passes WP:LISTN by virtue of detailed coverage in sources such as the relevant volume of the Victoria County History. As the list provides both information and a basis for future development, it satisfies WP:LISTPURP too and the nomination's contrary claim is false. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as a tightly defined, reliably sourced list.IceFishing (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Others
Northern Ireland
Others
Scotland
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
Horizons Gorwelion
- Horizons Gorwelion ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Non notable music festival, and given the editor's COI history the page was probably created for Welsh Monolpoly Money GDX420 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 1. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 18:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Hi User:GDX420 I would appreciate it if you would cease targeting a number of articles I have created and falsely claiming I am a paid editor. I am raising your repeated targeting of articles I have written at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:GDX420. Your proposal does not meet WP:DP - the article is clearly in need of more detail, but it is sufficiently referenced, impartial, clear, and accurate to remain on Wikipedia. Thanks. Llemiles (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - This clearly meets WP:GNG just going by the sourcing on the page. The article could use some more attention, but it is only 6 months old, and has not been edited a great deal. Deletion is not for cleanup, and there is no reason to delete this one. The nomination also appears to be WP:POINTy bearing in mind the WP:ASPERSIONS in related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welsh Wildlife Centre. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Sirfurboy sums it up nicely. MarnetteD|Talk 00:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Welsh Wildlife Centre
- Welsh Wildlife Centre ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Non-notable organisation. The only news about the centre is about an arson attack, but the articles aren't about the centre itself GDX420 (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Hi User:GDX420 I would appreciate it if you would cease targeting a number of articles I have created and falsely claiming I am a paid editor. I am raising your repeated targeting of articles I have written at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:GDX420. Your proposal does not meet WP:DP - the article is clearly in need of more detail, but it is sufficiently referenced, impartial, clear, and accurate to remain on Wikipedia. Thanks. Llemiles (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 1. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep an 80,000 p.a. visitor attraction is noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep lots of coverage in Gnews.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep; it is not just an organisation, but a geographical place of local importance, with extensive and varied habitat and numerous visitors. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It is a valuable, developing article with good potential. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep clearly meets WP:GNG. Nom seems to be acting in bad faith and the casting of WP:ASPERSIONS is troubling. MarnetteD|Talk 20:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
*Weak Keep Some sources on Google, I am leaning into the keep side, but not completely Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per rationals above, Some Sources are found on Google too. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:54, 1 February 2020 (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)