Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

WP:DELSORT/ENGLAND

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to England. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|England|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to England. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to

UK

.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

See also:
Wikipedia:English Wikipedians' notice board

Scan for England related AfDs

Scan for England related Prods
Scan for England related TfDs

England

Richard Dinan

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

The sources lack in-depth coverage, and some are interviews. The creator has opposed the redirect restoration and wants an AfD. - The9Man ^Talk 11:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^Talk 11:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Rommel?" "Gunner Who?"

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

Doesn't meet BOOKCRIT. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding quite a bit at Newspapers.com, enough to pass NBOOK. I do think we need a series page and as such, my question is this: is there enough notability to establish that multiple entries need individual pages or would this be covered just as well in a series article? I'll have to dig some more and I'm running short of time at the moment, so I'll leave that to others until I can return to this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Certainly meets NBOOK. Two more contemporary reviews on Trove: Canberra Times 1975-01-24 and Sydney Tribune 1976-04-21. I'd be very surprised if there aren't UK reviews - the Times didn't review it, but had dozens of other mentions of Milligan in that year; he was a household name when it came out. But I'd agree with ReaderofthePack that it may be better to cover the series as a whole - from what I remember, they're all in much the same style. Adam Sampson (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was definitely part of my concern. I typically run into a few of the same issues with series entries:
- Only a handful gain enough coverage to really justify individual articles - and they might not always be the first entry.
- When coverage does occur it tends to be more focused on reception than covering themes, development, and so on.
- When coverage of the themes, development, and so on does exist, it focuses on the series rather than the individual entries.
What usually ends up happening if one or all of the criteria occurs is that the individual articles end up being a rather long plot section followed by a few reviews and some basic info such as release dates and the like. When development/themes content is available, it's so general that such sections tend to be extremely similar to the others in the series. This one is a little different than some in that the first entry is fairly noteworthy, to the point where it could probably stand alone outside of a series article. But offhand the second doesn't seem to share in that and looks to be a case of point two: the coverage is generally reception.

I'll try to take a look at this. Regardless of how this goes, this definitely warrants a series page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Merging into a series page is an option per

WP:NBOOK but it does fulfill our notability requirements so flat out deletion is not in the cards, and we do not have one right now. If we have one that can be discussed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

MV.Health

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

Very questionable whether it passes

WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sexuality and gender, Medicine, England, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT - it has been featured in magazines by notable publishers, such as The Guardian. But the article is a promotional mess, so I favor

WP:TNT. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Holmcroft

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

This article has no sources, does not appear on any council websites except as a surgery or restaurant. Nowhere is this just a road name. So it is unlikely to be a neighborhood in its own right. The Lonely Lamb (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have opted to repair this malformed nomination, rather than continue the more-properly-formatted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holmcroft (2nd nomination), because this nomination is the one linked from the AfD notice that is not supposed to be changed during the discussion period. No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abrar Mir

AfDs for this article:

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

Coverage is mostly about the company and the individual lacks significant independent sources. Fails to meet

WP:NBLP. - The9Man ^Talk 09:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^Talk 09:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Health and fitness, Singapore, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Gee

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

Doesn't appear to have played in a competitive fixture for a fully professional team yet. Uhooep (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify –
WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Draftify not enough coverage right now, maybe in future if he plays some matches then there will be coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somto Boniface

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

Doesn't appear to have played in a competitive fixture for a fully professional team yet. Uhooep (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify –
WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brodi Hughes

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

Doesn't appear to have played in a competitive fixture for a fully professional team yet. Uhooep (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify –
WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balance My Hormones

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

Lacks significant independent coverage and fails to meet the notability for

WP:NCORP. - The9Man ^Talk 17:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^Talk 17:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Brooking

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

Non-league footballer. At least eight references here are primary sources. Uhooep (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Two half-decent sources about Bafana, not enough. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doublesix

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

Fails

WP:NCORP. Sourcing is extremely weak. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

doublesix was a developer that created multiple video games for the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, PC, iOS and Wii.

https://www.mobygames.com/company/10593/doublesix-video-games-ltd/

Moreover, if this entry is false, then what studio developed Burn Zombie Burn?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_Zombie_Burn 2407:C800:432B:D800:5464:9A5D:66B2:F623 (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said the article is false.

Merely being true does not make something suitable for inclusion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Then why is it being deleted. The studio existed and made games that were released to the general public. Gemuguru (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

King's Wood, Corby

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

No independent refs on the page. Nothing much else found to suggest notability JMWt (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This nature reserve is referenced by Natural England and the Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire. It is notable as a designated nature reserve. "Nothing much else found" is a vague criterion for deletion and incorrect as a matter of fact. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are independent sources. Both are involved in managing/owning the site. JMWt (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, the Trust manages the site. Natural England is the regulator and the site is mentioned briefly in their database of all local nature reserves. JMWt (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another independent source. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local nature reserves are designated as such by local authorities, not nationally. NGEO: Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level ... are presumed to be notable. Dege31 (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the independent coverage is minimal, or in passing. There is little that this article adds that is not already in the list, and I moved the only substantial reference which had been missing. Dege31 (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is not correct that there is minimal independent coverage. It is substantial. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, might I suggest you have a read of

Wikipedia:SIGCOV

. As the examples there show, short mentions in passing are not substantial. So in my opinion, newspaper articles which are not directly on topic but only mention the reserve in passing are not substantive. Short news articles which are on topic but are simply notices are not normally considered a sign of notability.

And that ultimately is where we disagree. There is coverage, but nothing that says this nature reserve meets the inclusion standard. If we were to allow this one, then we would have to include all the other thousands of English local nature reserves on the same basis. As far as I see, this isn't an SSSI or NNR, it's not an archaeological or geological reserve. Nobody has written a published book about it, nobody has used it as a site for their ecological studies. It's just not that important. JMWt (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are passing mentions which I did not add, but cumulatively support notability. Coverage in the database of Natural England of local nature reserves on its own establishes notability, and there are thousands of articles on them. I see no reason to single out this article as not notable. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's do some source analysis.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
https://web.archive.org/web/20161221235750/http://www.lnr.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/lnr/lnr_details.asp?C=30&N=&ID=244			Generic info in a database bolstered with a paragraph of 'what to see'	? Unknown
https://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/news/people/north-northamptonshire-council-awarded-grant-by-government-as-part-of-its-woodland-creation-accelerator-fund-3938810			Passing mention	✘ No
https://magic.defra.gov.uk/home.htm			This is a map	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20161222000758/http://www.wildlifebcn.org/reserves/kings-wood	This is an article on the website of the Wildlife Trusts		Database profile	✘ No
https://www.rockinghamforest.org.uk/nnc-woodlands	Funded by North Northamptonshire Council	Appears to be tour guides	Passing mention	✘ No
https://www.wildlifebcn.org/nature-reserves/kings-wood-and-rammamere-heath	This is an article on the website of the Wildlife Trusts			✘ No
https://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/political-opinion-independent-candidate-launches-fresh-campaign-for-corbys-kingswood-ward-5072782		Even if the reserve was mentioned, this looks like a press release	The reserve is not even mentioned	✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9qvjv3lqe5o			King's Wood is only relevant as belonging to the set of relevant parks, not in itself	✘ No
https://www.northnorthants.gov.uk/corby-woodland-project/kings-wood-nature-reserve	This is an article on the website of the North Northamptonshire Council		Generic, basic info	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dege31 (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep were the subject of two books by Jeffrey A. Best in the 1980s which the 2020 book "Trees and Woodlands in the British Lands" calls "mighty." I cannot access them or the book "The Royal Forests of Northamponshire" from the 1960s, and at least one research article on trees near road construction from the 1950s. Also some newspaper articles [1] - I'm sure there would probably be more if I could do a historical record search as I see lots of mentions over a period of time. If this is GEOLAND, then we're clearly there, GNG is more marginal but there's enough here to write an encyclopaedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 08:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment. You are basing it on two books you can't access? What is the subject of the books you reference? JMWt (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basing a comment on snippets of books to which you do not have full access to is valid. The article has pages devoted to it in two independent reliable sources, which are cited in the article. There are 7 million articles in English Wikipedia and most of them have problems with uncited statements, unreliable sources and statments not in the sources. Unlike this majority, the article is fully and correctly referenced. It also has more evidence of notability than at least a million articles. I find it puzzling that editors think that they can best improve Wikipedia by devoting so much time to making a case for deleting this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know the names of the authors and the subject of the book. That's not too much to ask when someone asserts that they're enough to show that the notability criteria have been met. That's it. JMWt (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a reference to "King's Wood Corby: Description, History, Explanation of Habitats and Wildlife" and "King's Wood Corby- local nature reserve: Evaluation and proposed management plan" Dege31 (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, those appear to be publications from a Higher Education college (which ultimately became the University of Northampton). Without actually being able to see them, we don't know if they are RS, peer reviewed or anything else. Simply knowing that they exist isn't enough. JMWt (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stirling Square Capital Partners

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

A normal business that is doing normal business things with no real sources in 8 years. All sources currently in the article are primary. A quick before search shows nothing besides ORGTRIV mentions like

M&A. Putting this article up for AfD because of the current WP:Articles for deletion/Gregorio Napoleone (2nd nomination) Moritoriko (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and United Kingdom. Moritoriko (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fin Roberts

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

Declined PROD. Article with several basic information missing, based on two database sources. I couldn't find anything about him after a

WP:BEFORE. Svartner (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, and England. Svartner (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft? Little bits on the web, Did you see those in your WP:BEFORE? BBC Line-up, BBC gets a mention. Mostly primary sources and databases online atm. Govvy (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Bargains

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

Does not seem notable Update6 (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Bull

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

Fails

WP:INTERVIEW but that's all I found. I like the guy's music but he doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for an article TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am familiar with DB from
WP:RS/PS. I am uncertain how to vote for now, so I will wait for others to give their opinions before settling on a vote. 11WB (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Holborn Adams

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

Does not meet GNG and sounds a bit promotional. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Uncle Bash007 Thank you for your other message and feedback. I created the page because a link existed on another page that was red and didn't go to a page that existed. Wikipedia therefore suggested page creation and I have seen other similar pages so assumed this was fine so long as there are notable references available. The references are all news articles. I have made some changes in line with your feedback to make sure the copy is purely informational. It is not intended to be promotional but factual and I hope this improves it. There were also links on other Wikipedia pages to this page that should now work rather than link to a page that does not exist. Are these improvements suitable? Greenfieldsgreentrees (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm so I'm kind of unsure where to go with this one... On the one hand the topic does seem notable but on the other there do appear to be genuine concerns about promotion with some coverage reading almost as paid (see [2] for example). I would say leaning keep for now with a mind to revisit in a year or two when more editors than just this one have had a crack at the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback @Horse Eye's Back. I created the article because there was a link to this page in red on another page that wasn't working, so Wikipedia suggested article creation. I have made some improvements to it in line with what another editor suggested. I thought that a wider selection of news sources would be useful, which is why that one was used, but I see your point about that coverage reading promotional in tone so I have removed it as I understand the importance of articles being neutral and purely informational. Greenfieldsgreentrees (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Morris

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

Parent company of only one main subsidiary, not notable Update6 (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Home Bargains Home Bargains is their trade name and it's even mentioned in the lede, making this article superfluous. Nathannah • 📮 01:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Home Bargains: that article is written in such a way that makes it clear that TJ Morris is just the corporate name behind the Home Bargains chain. It's pretty telling that, as currently written, the separate TJ Morris article claims that the company owns several businesses, but the only other one besides Home Bargains to be mentioned in the article, Quality Save, had all their locations rebranded to Home Bargains over the course of a year after being acquired. There's no separate notability (or topic) here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Lunt

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a G4, but neither have the issues raised at either of the prior AfDs been addressed. I've also done some paperwork, but am not positive of the results. Star Mississippi 02:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Star Mississippi 02:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In one season he went on loan, came back and then went on to make a total of 19 professional appearance for Crewe. With the fact he signed a new contract, I'm under the impression he is becoming more notable. Regardless of the
WP:PRIMARY sources present, there are a few secondary and if he has a good coming season then that helps even more. It's a weak keep for me, but I feel it's a fair assessment on his notability and where his career is. Govvy (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Which sources there are secondary? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC ones obviously! :/ Govvy (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Okay, I see two BBC sources:
Rotherham United 2 - 1 Crewe Alexandra - Clearly a match report which is equally clearly a primary source.

Crewe midfielder Lunt signs new one-year contract - 81 words specifically about the page subject before moving onto other things. We learn he is Kenny Lunt's nephew, and he signed a contract. It's not SIGCOV in my view, but even if it is, this is still reporting the signing of a contract. That is still a primary source as there is no synthesis of sources here. It will have come off the back of a club announcement, and is not independent of that.

So, sorry, I don't agree we have secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BBC are a secondary sources and are not classed as primary sources. Primary is close too, BBC are not close to the club or the player. However what you say is correct in view of individual sources. Again, you fail to understand the rules of GNG, when one source isn't enough you can combine multiple sources. Also again, I said my vote is a weak keep as he is an active player where as more sources can be added as he progresses through his career. Govvy (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
??? 1. Of course BBC can be a primary source, such as for match reports or other breaking news. 2. Primariness has nothing whatsoever to do with "closeness to the club", you seem to be confusing that with independence. 3. GNG says nothing about combining non-SIGCOV sources, that's something only found in BASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A BBC match report is not a primary source. However, more importantly, it is also not SIGCOV. Giant Snowman 20:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's moot, but... if someone watches a match and writes a report of the match, how is that not a primary eyewitness account of the match? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A 'primary source' refers to "accounts written by people who are directly involved" (i.e. in soccer we usually class that as the player's club or similar) - not an independent journalist writing a report. Giant Snowman 18:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well I see where you are coming from, but that's not really a sufficient summary of
WP:PRIMARY. The closest we come to that is in note d, but note d doesn't just say participants. For instance, it also says, A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Eyewitness accounts are always primary for the event they describe. To be secondary, sources must be synthesising primary sources. The word "secondary" refers to this fact that secondary sources are synthesised from the analysis of primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:PRIMARY is not limited to non-independent sources. They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer. A recap of a match by a journalist who observed that match is primary. JoelleJay (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with Govvy's input already here, I'm not going to G5 it, but dropping Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EnglishDude98 if helpful to others. Star Mississippi 12:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per discussion above, I don't see any secondary sources in this article. Match reporting is all primary, as are result tables. Interviews are not independent and primary per
WP:SPORTCRIT imposes an absolute minimum requirement that we must have one. Created by a block evading user, there is no reason to keep this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Number of professional appearances in 2025 should merit coverage if notable - and note that this was likely created by a sock. Giant Snowman 18:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed as being created by a sock and therefore eligible for speedy deletion. Giant Snowman 20:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question
WP:BASIC anymore. That's what, 10 minutes, 15 minutes of looking! I wonder what someone will find with a few hours to burn. Anyway I am going to go make some dinner now! Govvy (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
I did a Google search - nothing you have linked to is anywhere near SIGCOV. Giant Snowman 20:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the identified sources provide the required IRS SIGCOV. Primary match reports, routine transactional announcements, interviews etc. do not count. JoelleJay (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Young footballer who never played at higher levels. The secondary sources provided are transfer announcements and brief mentions in match reports. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 05:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I do think we are very close to notability here - just need one more article on him. SportingFlyer T·C 15:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Richold Collection

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

{{{text}}} Rhinocrat (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC) This page doesn't seem to meet

WP:N, relies on a single source, a booklet. Other refs seem to be news sources. All refs don't have page numbers and are all unlinked except two, one a biography second some kind of video. Checked sections, and they don't seem to be correctly written (someone more experienced can double check)[reply

]

Keep. I've added Newspapers.com clippings to the article for all of the sources that were available. Someone with access to the British Newspaper Archive should be able to verify the rest of the newspaper sources. There is plenty more about the collection on Newspapers.com as well, e.g. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] plus about 100 more search hits. MCE89 (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's still overreliant on one source, so best case it gets stubified Rhinocrat (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure I really understand your concern. Is there something wrong with that source that makes you think it needs to be removed? Relying largely on one comprehensive source and then filling in details with news coverage is quite common and is generally fine. The booklet is not the perfect source, but it seems fine to me as a source for basic details. MCE89 (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be stubified anyway because while the collection itself may be notable, the booklet could be biased anyway, and I don't think it is significant independent coverage. Some of the history could be moved to a biography, and the rest should be truncuated to a summary (needing individual detail for each section seems a bit excessive detail e.g. "Made to a scale of 1:50. The model contained over 4,000 pieces and took over four years to make. It is made of sycamore with window bows of cotton wood." from the article is so much unneccessary detail. (Or maybe merge it into Richard Old since it's a stub) Rhinocrat (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually maybe merge it into Richard Old my stance is now merge into Richard Old Rhinocrat (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable per the sources presented by MCE89. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ladywood House

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

Could not find any in-depth coverage per

WP:NBUILD. Aŭstriano (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, United Kingdom, and England. Aŭstriano (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no explanation, other than it was once the tallest building in a small city, and
a reliable source that a thousands of people live there, ping me. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I thought I could save this, but all I have been able to find is this. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the noble attempt to save it per
WP:PRESERVE by SportingFlyer, non-notable. Lacks SIGCOV and fails GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

ToTheBones

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

Utter lack of

WP:SIGCOV. Potentially UPE. jellyfish ✉ 00:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. jellyfish ✉ 00:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated above, lack of
significant, reliable coverage. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 04:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The group looks likely to meet
WP:MUSIC with coverage from, e.g., The Guardian ([16]), NME ([17]), The Line of Best Fit ([18]), and Drowned in Sound ([19]). I doubt this exhausts their 2008-era coverage (going to paper probably necessary for much more). Chubbles (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ~~Delete: No SIGCOV in RS.~~ No awards, charting, certified gold. The band hasn't posted on Myspace or Facebook in the last 7 years. Their website is down. I only found a couple of Youtube videos from 11 and 13 years ago. I also found a few more sources but from many years ago. Most likely they have disbanded. ~~Either way notability is not met.~~ — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Aside from the SIGCOV identified by Chubbles, I found: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. We indeed don't know whether they didbanded or not, but there are enough coverage of their work to keep the article. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 03:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also found some of those sources. The 3 articles in the town newspaper (The Bolton News) and the NME blog doesn't seem important enough to me. The BBC News articles are also local. About Chubbles' sources, ~~two are online music magazines which are difficult to asses as reliable.~~ The Guardian and the NME article are ~~the only~~ sources I would consider useful, and perhaps the BBC ones.— Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of reliable sources coverage such as The Guardian, BBC, NME. Also coverage in
WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

I didn't know those two sources were reliable. Thank you for pointing that out.

Keep: I've changed my vote accordingly. The Guardian, Drowned in Sound and The Line of Best Fit are RS. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we get a source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTPROMOTION

Andh Namazi (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appleby Court

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

Notability not demonstrated. Google search returns only estate agent listings of apartments in the building. The two sources only describe it in passing (where the first link can be found on The Internet Archive}. Tæppa (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is on the London Borough of Ealing's heritage list who give it a detailed description. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tæppa (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Philafrenzy. Althogh it's actually Enfield, not Ealing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus Christi Catholic Church, Wokingham

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

Not seeing any independent

WP:BEFORE search turns up many more directory listings and trivial mentions (example) but nothing we can work with for notability. Open to a redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth but bringing it to AfD for that consensus since a draftification was contested with the addition of non-qualifying sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a run-of-the-mill parish. I wouldn't redirect to the diocese as there is no list of parishes. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep Many of the other churches in the diocese have a Wikipedia page, so I believe that it's only fair that this one does. There might not be too many references because it isn't a huge parish, but many other churches' Wikipedia pages have even worse referencing, it it is difficult to find relevant sources. But I believe that the sources are not biased and it does not compromise the quality of the article. Eterin (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- it's not a valid argument to retain a page. If it's difficult to find sourcing for this topic then we should not keep it as a standalone mainspace page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TKatKa

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

Not seeing how this group meets

WP:ROUTINE or passing mentions. ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sweden, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, they exist, and have been played at least once on
ResonantDis_tortion 07:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Emmett James

Emmett James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have carried out
WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, Theatre, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not finding anything - most of his roles are smaller and less likely to gain mention in sourcing. I was trying to find coverage for his theatrical performances, but I'm not finding much there either. With the awards, it looks like those were "best film" type awards for movies he produced. However the issue with awards as producer is that it's harder to establish their role in the production. Some producers are extremely involved and important to the final product, whereas others aren't really "hands on" with the production outside of funding and initial work. Of course then we have to look at whether or not the awards are notable enough to meet NCREATIVE/NACTOR either partially (count towards but not enough on its own to keep) or fully (enough on its own). I've always thought a good rule of thumb is to see if the awards website lists the producer. If so, then it could be usable (assuming the award is notable), if not it likely isn't.

In any case, with the awards, two of them are known vanity awards (Accolade Competition, Impact Docs Award). Nashville Film Festival and the Beverly Hill Film Festival look like wins from them would probably be usable. Tacoma Film Festival is smaller, but probably OK. The other wins are questionable as far as notability goes and the others are nominations so it's irrelevant whether they are notable or not - none of them are at the level where a nomination would be considered noteworthy. That's limited to things like the Oscars.

I guess the question here is whether or not his producing role was large enough for him to inherit notability from the movies in a similar way that one would as an actor or director. Executive producer credits would probably count, but the generic producer credit is where there's pause. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a couple of theater reviews. Only three though, which is technically enough I guess to pass NACTOR. I think between that and the kind of nebulous producer notability, that might be enough to keep. I'm not 100% so I am not making an argument for or against at the moment. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What info would you like from me? Emmett James film Life and Larry Brown was short listed for an Academy Award. He has produced a ton of films that are on Netflix, amazon and Hulu where he is the main producer. He is one of the heads of the producers guild of America for documentaries. He does conventions around the world for his acting credits including TITANIC and has appeared as a guest speak at comic con in San Diego for Star Wars. Im a little confused to why this is even a discussion to be honest Savinghollywood (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With the nomination, that would really only help if he was on the final ballot. Normally being nominated (but not winning) would not help count towards notability at all, however the Academy Award is kind of the pinnacle of things one can be nominated for with films in the US. At the same time, being shortlisted doesn't mean that someone ended up on the final ballot. Even then it kind of goes back to the issue of establishing notability for producers. Honestly, most producers tend to end up failing NCREATIVE, regardless of how successful they are. It's just really difficult to argue for notability for them.

What would really be useful here is coverage of James or coverage of the work that gives some detail on him. For his acting roles (including stage), reviews of the work that specifically mention him would be as good as gold. With the notable films and shows, those roles are only as notable as the mention he receives in reviews and independent, reliable, secondary coverage of the episode or film. Many of his roles were background or minor, which typically don't get much coverage. He does seem to have been in a few episodes of some anime, but I'll be honest in that establishing notability for VAs is insanely difficult. I remember trying to argue notability for someone who voiced multiple main characters in several large, notable series. It was insanely difficult, because people usually don't highlight specific VAs - even the anime outlets are bad at that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK- found the VA I was mentioning. What I participated in wasn't an AfD (although she had been brought to AfD and deleted in the past due to a lack of sourcing), but it was as good as one. It was Brianne Siddall. Her notability is established now, but it was extremely difficult to accomplish this despite her voicing major characters in some pretty iconic anime like Outlaw Star. I don't mean to derail the AfD, I just wanted to emphasize how difficult it can be to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has had some minor roles; has been producer on minor films. I don't find any source that is about him. The good sources here are name checks, and a one sentence "review". Lamona (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the reviews, do you mean the ones for the theater productions? With that, the reviews for the productions are pretty meaty. One specifically highlights James - Variety doesn't explicitly mention him in the review body (they do mention the gang, which James portrays a member of), but it was a small production. For the other production, the LA Times review is also pretty lengthy and also specifically mentions him as well.

If you are referring to the LA Times review of "Uncomfortable Family Ties" that is the one with all of 2 sentences about him, and that's the most that I have found. If you are referring to something else, I've missed it and need a reminder. Thanks. Lamona (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be clear that I'm not exactly arguing for a keep, just that the reviews are in-depth and when he is actually mentioned by name in the review there's mention of his performance quality. However if we discard the Variety source I am aware that these are two reviews by the same paper. I was hoping that Savinghollywood would have access to other theater reviews that are of similar depth and reliability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can send you a ton of reviews if this will help:

Everything producing from:

https://deadline.com/2023/06/the-elephant-6-recording-co-music-documentary-greenwich-entertainment-acquisition-news-1235424776/

His films have been up for academy awards such as this Variety ad for the movie that was an Oscar shortlist oscars

https://www.ebay.com/itm/324452745826

Films he's produced have been reviewed in publications such as Rolling Stone

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/peter-hook-dennis-and-lois-documentary-990257/

For book reviews of his memoir they are everywhere:

https://www.errantdreams.com/2008/03/admit-one-emmet-james/

you can find the LA Times review of his lead role on stage in la written by esteemed critic: Robin Rauzi:

LA Times Sep 97 titled "uncomfortable family ties" https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-sep-10-ca-21177-story.html

He does celebrity conventions/signings constantly from San Diego Comic Con right through to one in a few weeks in Virginia for the film TITANIC July 25-27th Newport News Virginia

Just let me know what specifically you need. Savinghollywood (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-oct-02-ca-38659-story.html

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/sidemen-long-road-glory-1030244/

Hollywood reporter of the film he produced SIDEMEN Savinghollywood (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of these is about him; some just "name check" him in the list of producers; some don't even mention him. There is one 2-sentence "review" in the LA Times: Emmett James is remarkably convincing as Tom. His manner and wails remain so consistent that when he speaks as part of the discords it is startling. That's it, and that is far from enough to meet GNG, much less BLP. We need substantial, reliable sources about HIM. (Note: Errant Dreams appears to be a person's blog, and therefore is not a reliable source.) Lamona (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Boufarhat

Johnny Boufarhat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article reads somewhat like a resume mixed with a blog, possibly because the subject, per the article, "keeps a low public profile". The references, though 30, are not predominantly about the subject; many are ammouncements about his company, and several others are general articles that mention him in passing. The few sources that are actually about him profile him for having a lot of money, either locally or in Forbes, and are not generally in depth. He does not appear to be personally notable. This is also a problematic
WP:BLP, devoting a lot of space to his personal health. FalconK (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. FalconK (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, United Arab Emirates, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of enduring (or even basic) notability. His brief time in a UAE school didn't really leave any footprints here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Coverage exists on plenty of sites to meet
WP:BASIC. Check 1, 2, 3, 4. Mysecretgarden (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not in agreement. This is a lot of by-the-numbers reporting that is mostly not about the subject. The most that can be said about him from all 4 sources is that he sold a company. FalconK (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of significant coverage - and if he keeps a low profile, then maybe he doesn't want to be a public figure. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough coverage for this to be made into an article that doesn't need to be deleted.

GalStar (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is reasonable to assume someone reading the Forbes 30 Under 30 Europe list might want to read more about those named in the list. User01938 (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D1 Denby Darts

D1 Denby Darts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable local bus route with limited history and fails
WP:GNG Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Team Pennine under the existing Denby Darts heading. This article is too short by itself but would fit into the main article for the service's operator. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 19:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are four different newspaper articles from 2019 to 2021 covering the subject. Contrary to the nominator's statement, this passes
WP:GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
It fails
WP:SIGCOV. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see how - I can't access the 6 July piece but the other articles are entirely about the D1 service or its former number, the 233. Garuda3 (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This actually goes beyond what
WP:SIGCOV specifies, which is Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Garuda3 (talk) 09:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
You got to read up on
WP:BUSROUTE
.

There is enough information on each page to write a sizeable article - There isn't

Writing the article(s) together or within other articles would exceed article size guidelines - There's already a section on Team Pennine about their Denby Darts branding and there is no further history within this article that makes it worth retaining

Additionally, there is no reason to believe that a bus route between Denby Dale and Huddersfield which both aren't major cities is worth including with the extent of history that is out there on the route. I rest my case. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ and move to Stacey Gregg. Owen× ☎ 13:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Jefferson

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination
)

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

No sources. Only external link is IMDb. User:Tankishguy talk :) say hi 21:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. User:Tankishguy talk :) say hi 21:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be worth noting that the article title probably should be Stacey Gregg (the page with that name has been deleted a few times previously). Don't think she was ever known as Stacy (without the e). She was also known for roles in the US as Stacey Maxwell, eg in The Virginian, The Monkees and Batman. In the UK she's known for roles in Crossroads https://www.newspapers.com/image/893742133 and playing Sandy in Grease alongside Richard Gere eg https://www.newspapers.com/image/840906998 There's a few more hits at https://www.newspapers.com/search/results/?keyword=%22Stacey+Gregg%22++&region=gb-eng worth checking the British Newspaper Archive as well, see also this two-page articles from the TV Times in 1971 (page 8-9) https://mcmweb.co.uk/tvtimes/1971/Nov%206th%201971.pdf Piecesofuk (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Stacey Gregg she meets
WP:NACTOR. She has also been credited as Stacey Jefferson and Stacey Richardson. As well as voicing the roles mentioned in the current article, she played Daffy in all episodes of Tottering Towers and Nurse Baxter in 23 episodes of Crossroads from 1977-1978. On stage, she played Sandy opposite Richard Gere in the British premiere of Grease (musical), first in Coventry and then on the West End. As well as the coverage found by Piecesofuk, there is coverage and information about more roles in the British Newspaper Archive. I'll add more info and sources to the article. There appears to be another Stacey Gregg, probably also notable, who is director of Here Before and co-creator/director of other shows. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

2026 Ealing London Borough Council election

2026 Ealing London Borough Council election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:CRYSTAL. This election is scheduled to take place in May 2026. At present, no reliable and independent sources are available regarding the event and possible candidates. The article may be recreated once sufficient verifiable information becomes available. If not deleted, the article could be redirected to Ealing London Borough Council elections for the time being. QEnigma (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. QEnigma (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ealing London Borough Council elections for now. User:Moondragon21 (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps it was a bit early, but it feels a bit of a waste of energy and work to delete it. Perhaps Redirect Kepleo123 (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Election is happening within the next year; article is well-written with information currently available. It wouldn't benefit Wikipedia in any way to remove the existing content only to reinstate it in a few months' time. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@
secondary sources are available. QEnigma (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
The article has five citations.

This sort of thing happens all the time for upcoming elections– someone writes an article on the election in question, someone else tries to get the article deleted, the attempt fails. It ~ould be a far more productive use of time to develop this article and similar articles. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chessrat: With regards to your comment on a well written article, it appears that most of the content including some of the references have been copied from 2022 Ealing London Borough Council election but no attribution given. Please note Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). QEnigma (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As nobody has done so already, I have now added this attribution to the talk page. Thanks for pointing it out! Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon, none of the sources cover the 2026 election. red link to encourage creation when time comes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoblyblob (talk • contribs) 04:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Source assessment table. QEnigma (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable?
Significant coverage?
Count source toward
GNG
?

https://web.archive.org/web/20230406212109/https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/who-runs-london/essential-guide-london-local-government
Primary source Government website No significant coverage of the subject ✘ No

https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/ealings-new-leader-peter-mason-20629850
Part of Reach plc publishers of the Daily Mirror No consensus No significant coverage of the subject ✘ No

https://ealing.news/ealing-council/south-acton-ward-councillor-standing-down-to-focus-on-parliament-role/
Local community-led online publication No consensus No significant coverage of the subject ✘ No

https://ealing.news/politics/general-election-2024/deirdre-costigan-elected-as-mp-for-ealing-southall/
Local community-led online publication No consensus No significant coverage of the subject ✘ No

https://ealing.news/politics/general-election-2024/three-by-elections-set-for-ealing-after-ward-councillors-become-mps/
Local community-led online publication No consensus No significant coverage of the subject ✘ No

This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment I have added a source focusing on the 2026 election specifically to the article. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as too soon and as per the above source analysis. Stifle (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reliability of Ealing.News can be debated, but there is no consensus available (
WP:SIGCOV from multiple reliable and independent sources. Such coverage should be specifically about the event and references should not rely on routine announcements or speculation. Therefore, the formation of a shadow cabinet or strategic manoeuvring by an opposition party does not automatically establish notability for the election itself ([33]). Declared candidates are a benchmark and references highlighting official candidate declarations, campaign funding, etc., are essential. QEnigma (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Cascades Shopping Centre

Cascades Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant in-depth coverage outside of local media. Aŭstriano (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, United Kingdom, and England. Aŭstriano (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Portsmouth. Other articles about shopping malls give details such as what movies they've appeared in, what historical registries they're on... According to this article, the Cascades Shopping Centre is just a shopping center. Merge with no prejudice against re-creation if sourcing establishing independent notability can be found. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not a great article, in need of editing, sourcing and removal of non-encyclopaedic comments, but the subject seems clearly notable enough for inclusion. I also note that the proposer states No significant in-depth coverage outside of local media, which suggests that there is significant in-depth coverage in local media. Unless there is something in our notability guidelines that excludes local media, and I certainly cannot find anything, then this statements seems to contradict the proposal. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I certainly don't claim to be an expert and am not sure if it applies here, but
WP:AUD does exclude local media. Aŭstriano (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
That is part of
WP:NGEO. Peter James (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm browsing the
Portsmouth Evening News, which is more "regional" than "local" in nature. I will investigate fully when I get home tonight. The Cascades is a prominent shopping centre, comparable to those listed in the navbox at the bottom of the article; I feel continued coverage "should" be findable – quite probably in Portsmouth Reference Library, which I have used before. I will follow up on this later. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 14:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost all the google news hits are from local press. Thus fails
WP:AUD, just another shopping centre. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as right now there is no consensus and we have a variety of outcomes proposed: Deletion, Merger and Keeping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Grosvenor Light Opera Company (via WP:PROD on 22 March 2025)

Redirects

Templates

See also

Wikipedia:WikiProject England/Article alerts, a bot-maintained listing of a variety of changes affecting England related pages including deletion discussions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/England&oldid=1298178718"