Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom
![]() | Points of interest related to History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
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:
- 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|United Kingdom|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to the United Kingdom. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.
![](http://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
|
United Kingdom
Hypo (rapper)
- Hypo (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 23:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Coverage of the murder, trial and suspect are what I find. Nothing about the musician while he was alive, other than an article about who he was dating. None of these things contribute to musical notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Grapevine (disk magazine)
- Grapevine (disk magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am struggling to find sources that discuss Grapevine in depth. Per the article's own description, it was "a [d]isk magazine for the Commodore Amiga published by the [d]emo scene group LSD." (my bold emphasis added). A publication by none other than those involved in the demoscene would have a high bar to clear in order to count as notable. Predictably, the few sources I can dig up refer to it passingly, and some old Amiga magazines did look at Grapevine, but from what I saw, they were reviewing the disk magazine's issues, not writing about its importance or influence in the Amiga community. The only thing that can save this article is if others happen to find more information about Grapevine, and in depth, which I could not. FreeMediaKid$ 23:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Computing. FreeMediaKid$ 23:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
List of Liverpool F.C. matches in international competitions
- List of Liverpool F.C. matches in international competitions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an unnecessary and redundant collection of matches that Liverpool have played in international competition. An article outlining the club's record in Europe already exists, we do not need a list of every single match. Considering also that the reader can learn what happened in those matches from the equivalent season articles AND from seasonal competition pages. I understand having smaller lists for clubs that don't usually play in Europe. For example, Burnley's article contains only a few matches, each of which are especially notable. But like most big English clubs, Liverpool play in Europe almost every single season; making most matches almost as notable as any domestic match. A discussion to delete this list reached no consensus just over two years ago now; but I truely believe redundant lists like this have no place on Wikipedia. Idiosincrático (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, United Kingdom, and England. Idiosincrático (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – Due to the club's relevance worldwide, I don't see any problems with a list of international matches existing. This is complementary information and can be easily verified. Svartner (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Liverpool F.C. in international football, I don't know why we need two separate articles, there is plenty of room in the main one to house the list. You say in your nomination, unnecessary and redundant collection of matches I completely disagree with that, further more, the information in the main article clearly shows it's not redundant and appears to be historically necessary. You haven't even posted any policy based argument in your nomination either. Govvy (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Live Art Development Agency
- Live Art Development Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources not passing
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: As well the 2011 piece by Lyn Gardner of The Guardian which is referenced in the article, searches also find a 2019 piece by the same author. It is partly an interview with the co-founder of LADA, but starts with the writer's overview of the Live Art field and evaluation of LADA's role in it. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- The following doesn't contribute to notability here, but I will also note that the present article doesn't mention organisational controversy during 2023 (news item discussing the closure threat and petition). AllyD (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)]
- The following doesn't contribute to
- Quick google scholar search https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22live+art+development+agency%22&btnG= indicates multiple quality sources referencing the organisation and its significance in global and UK live art, including books https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wyJHEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA12&dq=%22live+art+development+agency%22&ots=M7sejwMOu5&sig=66lY7cxWvj0E_0jIdmuCmVU5DN8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22live%20art%20development%20agency%22&f=false and peer review articles dating back to the early 2000s DrawingDays (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I vote against deletion. While the article has issues, they aren't based on notability. It is clearly a well-cited and long running organisation that is important the UK cultural scene. The article could more clearly lay out the history and challenges of the org, as mentioned above, but this doesn't warrant deletion. genericxz (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator has invoked WP:NONPROFIT applies. It is not necessary for the subject to meet the more stringent guidelines put in place for corporate entities. On this basis - in particular including from the arguments above - there does appear sufficient coverage and citations of the activities of this charity to have a reasonable presumption of notability. ResonantDistortion 22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)]
77 Armoured Engineer Squadron
- 77 Armoured Engineer Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of the article does not seem to be notable. No references are provided. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Specialist Group Information Services
- Specialist Group Information Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article does not contain independent references. I do not think the subject is notable. PercyPigUK (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Not notable enough to meet WP:GNG and does not have significant coverage. The only available online sources at this time are self-published. Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)]
- Delete: I'm not seeing any independent sources to back it up, and it doesn't quite reach the level of importance for Wikipedia. Waqar💬 17:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
List of people who have lived in Hampstead Garden Suburb
- List of people who have lived in Hampstead Garden Suburb (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)
Wikipedia is not a phonebook. This has been {{
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Walsh90210 (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, obviously. A ridiculous and non-encyclopaedic article which may even breach privacy for the people it lists in the present tense. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: This article seems more like a personal opinion piece than an encyclopedia entry. Waqar💬 17:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The Torchwood Archive
- The Torchwood Archive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not enough reliable independent coverage - all I've been able to find is self-published blogs posting reviews. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 13:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 13:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Torchwood_(audio_drama_series)#Background: if existing coverage is judged insufficient for a standalone page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Radio, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Torchwood (audio drama series)#Background - The only sources currently in the article are primary, and searches are bringing up only brief mentions in reliable sources. This specific audio drama is already covered in the indicated section, so this should be redirected there. Rorshacma (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Cruisers Rock Combo
- Cruisers Rock Combo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to meet
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Andrew Hignell
- Andrew Hignell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable cricket writer. Article was previously deleted in 2007, but there is still no evidence of the subject's notability. – PeeJay 11:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Cricket, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Ledbetter. Suriname0 (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Based on a quick search, doesn't seem to meet ]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, History, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Suriname0 found a review of A 'Favourit' Game, reviewed by Jack Williams. I'll add to that a review of Rain stops play, reviewed by Robert Thorpe, ]
- Keep. His books are reviewed in serious publications and he is generally considered the pre-eminent historian of Welsh cricket. Sammyrice (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Surprised to see this nom. Hignell is one of the best known and pre-eminent living cricket historians. Meets ]
- Hi WP:GNG. I couldn't find any when I looked, and the current article doesn't cite any that contain SIGCOV in my opinion! Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)]
- Hi
- Keep. Now up to six reliably published book reviews (of six different books, not counting reviews in specialist cricket web sites), enough for ]
204 (Tyneside Scottish) Battery Royal Artillery
- 204 (Tyneside Scottish) Battery Royal Artillery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of the article does not seem to be notable. The article has not been edited in 3 years and only contains two independent sources. PercyPigUK (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The article is capable of expansion: the articles relating to the other batteries of this regiment are substantial and this battery has quite a history as well. I will expand it a bit. Dormskirk (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have expanded the article and added a lot more sources: hopefully the proposal can now be withdrawn. Dormskirk (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Dormskirk. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Rickfive you are our expert here, your thoughts would be welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep after Dormskirk's work expanding the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Ian Whitting
- Ian Whitting (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)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iceland, Montenegro, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Stuart Gill
- Stuart Gill (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)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iceland, Malta, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Important Ambassador key to negotiations on the completion of the EU’s Single Market. KEEP Cantab12 (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - if not notable then this list List of high commissioners of the United Kingdom to Malta is just useless. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree. The list is not useless even if not all office holders on the list are inherently notable. The ones with knighthoods/damehoods would be considered notable, almost by default. Uhooep (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Michael Nevin (diplomat)
- Michael Nevin (diplomat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iceland, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I nominated quite a few of the diplomat articles I previously created for deletion, but I left this one out as there was coverage of his time in Malawi in the Nyasa Times and other Malawian sources. : [3], [4], [5], [6] [7]. May be more available. Unsure if this fails GNG. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Pears Foundation
- Pears Foundation (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 searched for some independent, reliable secondary sources to established this organisation's notability but it mostly just returned listings and a few press releases so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this subject is not notable. 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 16:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)- Delete - I see only WP:ROTM coverage in the style of "rich dude gives some money to [thing]". This lacks depth and is just a press release. Can't find any secondary criticism or discussion. BrigadierG (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)]
Virgin Atlantic Flight 024
- Virgin Atlantic Flight 024 (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)
Minor aviation incident, no serious injuries or fatalities, not a hull loss, no impact on aviation regulations or the air transportation system generally; in summary, no
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Carguychris (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- keep This is a clear incident with wounded people. The Banner talk 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi User:The Banner, can you expand a bit beyond direct impacts, here injuries sustained plus damage both to the vessel and to Heathrow Airport? gidonb (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Routine airline mechanical incident that resulted in no deaths or serious injuries, plus WP:NOTNEWS. "Wounded people" is certainly not a viable rationale for keeping the article. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 23:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)]
- Keep. Per ]
- @Gidonb: Could you give more iformation so we can locate the sources, and if possible, check them out for ourselves? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- User:LaundryPizza03, of course! Thanks for asking! It's all through Google Books. gidonb (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Delete There is this: [8], not certain about reliability. Otherwise it's just routine day-by-day reporting, no WP:LASTING. All other information found is either mundane database entries or trivial. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)]
- Oh, wow! Great find! That's already 4 cases of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, this time from 2024! How does such persistent coverage correspond with your conclusion? gidonb (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)]
- SimpleFlying is NOT a reliable source - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#SimpleFlying.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- By WP:LASTING. Hence, also this fourth and very detailed source carries weight, in addition to the other three, as it proves that the interest in this event continues to date. For that purpose (only) the quality of the publication is of little or no relevance. gidonb (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)]
- SimpleFlying does not count towards notability because it isn't reliable - the guideline that you quote does not say that non-reliable sources count for notability - you need to show significant coverage in reliable sources - for the three book sources, there needs to be significant coverage (ie. not just passing mention) - do they show that?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Coverage in Simon does not seem to be very extensive - a mention that the incident occured and discussion about how British tabloid newspapers said nice things about the pilot (in a discussion about how flight crew behaviour in accidents and near-misses. Similarly, Branson's book merely talks about how Branson entertained the flight crew on his private island after the incident - again - not really significant coverag. I can't see the Balmforth source.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- While not all these statements hold water, I will refer you to my previous answer that had already covered the gist of these arguments. gidonb (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Coverage in Simon does not seem to be very extensive - a mention that the incident occured and discussion about how British tabloid newspapers said nice things about the pilot (in a discussion about how flight crew behaviour in accidents and near-misses. Similarly, Branson's book merely talks about how Branson entertained the flight crew on his private island after the incident - again - not really significant coverag. I can't see the Balmforth source.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- SimpleFlying does not count towards notability because it isn't reliable - the guideline that you quote does not say that non-reliable sources count for notability - you need to show significant coverage in reliable sources - for the three book sources, there needs to be significant coverage (ie. not just passing mention) - do they show that?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- By
- SimpleFlying is NOT a reliable source - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#SimpleFlying.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, wow! Great find! That's already 4 cases of
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the sources found by gidonb. Whether people were killed/injured/wounded are made up criteria that have nothing to do with notability and ]
- Redirect to ]
- Weak keep. I'll AGF on the sources given by gidonb. S5A-0043Talk 09:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect The sources given cannot be classified as event criteria. If this were to close as a redirect, I would suggest a redirect to Virgin Atlantic#Incidents and accidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)]
- Delete No need to redirect, IMO, because the incident is covered in Airbus_A340#Accidents, and that's all that is needed. I agree that the Simon book appears to have a mention, but not significant coverage. The Readers Digest coverage seems to be the most extensive, but such a source cannot alone establish GNG. Lamona (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The sources given by gidonb, the Reader's Digest article as well as The Standard, The Guardian, BBC have given coverage, well past 1997. Regardless of how the incident may be, I'm certain that this article shouldn't be deleted on grounds of WP:GNG. Not to mention the landing gear recommendations given to Airbus with this incident. GalacticOrbits (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)]
- People keep mentioning a Readers Digest article - what reference is this? - as far as I can tell, none of the references are from Reader's Digest.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's in Google Books, and I recall having seen the RD version excerpted somewhere (here?) in a religious magazine. It may be above but I'm not seeing it. Lamona (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)]
- Ah, I usually use DuckDuckGo and not Google so that's where it came up: RD. It's from 2004. Lamona (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just to comment, The Standard's article only briefly mentions Flight 24. Most of the article talks about the emergency landing of a Virgin Atlantic Boeing 747. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Roman Hifo
- Roman Hifo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of this
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, United Kingdom, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Insufficient coverage, doesn't appear to be a notable player regardless. Mn1548 (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: It doesn't look like they've had a significant enough impact on the rugby league world to warrant a dedicated Wikipedia page. Maybe if their career takes off in the future, we can revisit this. Waqar💬 17:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Delight Mobile
- Delight Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a bundled nomination of five articles on UK MVNOs failing the
The other four are:
- Dalya Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dialog Vizz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Now PAYG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Stan Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rather than continue the slow trickle of individual deletions, I figure it makes more sense to discuss them all at once. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Kingdom, and England. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Francis William Lascelles
- Francis William Lascelles (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)
British official (not
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The man held an exceptionally important post (one of the two chief administrative officers of the British Parliament) and was knighted, for crying out loud. Meets WP:ANYBIO #1. This deletionism is frankly getting silly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)]
- Holding an "important" post (or rather, an administrative role in the politically unimportant house of the legislature) does not, by itself, establish notability. GNG does, which requires substantial coverage in reliable sources, which you do not cite. As to ANYBIO, being knighted is, as I understand it, pretty much automatic at that level of administrative seniority (cf. "Sir Humphrey"); notably, the article does not imply that he obtained the award for any particular achievement. And receiving a title is only an indicator that a person is likely notable, not that they are guaranteed inclusion. If we do not have substantial secondary sources, we have no basis for an article. Sandstein 20:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)]
- The "achievement" for which he received his knighthood was being appointed to the post. Why do you think people receive high awards? Because they distinguish themselves in their chosen field. Which he clearly did. The House of Lords is not "the politically unimportant house of the legislature"! It is one of the two houses of the legislature and its clerk is no less important than that of the House of Commons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- The House of Lords, like the monarch, is now an essentially decorative feature of the British constitution. Political power lies in the House of Commons. In any case, since the post of clerk does not come with automatic notability under our rules, neither does a title awarded merely for becoming clerk. Sandstein 12:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- You clearly do not understand the concept of being honoured for reaching the top of one's chosen profession. It's no different from any other knight. Sir WP:ANYBIO #1 - to catch people who are not high-profile but still notable enough to receive high honours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)]
- You clearly do not understand the concept of being honoured for reaching the top of one's chosen profession. It's no different from any other knight. Sir
- The House of Lords, like the monarch, is now an essentially decorative feature of the British constitution. Political power lies in the House of Commons. In any case, since the post of clerk does not come with automatic notability under our rules, neither does a title awarded merely for becoming clerk. Sandstein 12:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- The "achievement" for which he received his knighthood was being appointed to the post. Why do you think people receive high awards? Because they distinguish themselves in their chosen field. Which he clearly did. The House of Lords is not "the politically unimportant house of the legislature"! It is one of the two houses of the legislature and its clerk is no less important than that of the House of Commons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Holding an "important" post (or rather, an administrative role in the politically unimportant house of the legislature) does not, by itself, establish notability. GNG does, which requires substantial coverage in reliable sources, which you do not cite. As to ANYBIO, being knighted is, as I understand it, pretty much automatic at that level of administrative seniority (cf. "
- Delete fails ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Equinox (Amiga demogroup)
- Equinox (Amiga demogroup) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. Surprisingly, there isn't significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár .
I am also bundling the disk magazine European Top 20 published by Equinox in this nomination. toweli (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. toweli (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on
Jonathan Charles
- Jonathan Charles (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
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Radio, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Have now added the archive of his BBC profile, but don't think that changes notability status. Tacyarg (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Michael Lodge
- Michael Lodge (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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I have added five more references to the point where I believe it passes WP:GNG, and I believe further references could be found to expand further. His role in shaping an international regulatory framework for deep sea mining seems significant. Uhooep (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone check out the sources added by Uhooep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep passes WP:GNG per the sources available. They give significant coverage and are from reliable sources. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)]
Edward Parker (police officer)
- Edward Parker (police officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not meet criteria of notability Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Seem to be police officers all over the world with this name... I get hits from the US, Australia and elsewhere, but nothing for this person. I'm not seeing more than a one or two line biography here, unsure of the notability. Lack of sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify Coverage here in the Sydney Morning Herald from 1930 including biographical information [9]. A google books search focused on "Edward Parker" and "Special Branch" does identify a number of hits ([10]). There is potential for meeting notability guidelines therefore as an WP:ATD I suggest moving to draftspace for incubation. ResonantDistortion 10:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning toward delete based on discussion so far, but at least a little more discussion would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. However if someone wants it to actively improve on, I'm happy to restore it to draft. Star Mississippi 02:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Ravenstein (film)
- Ravenstein (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. signed, Rosguill talk 15:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify: It could have been redirected to the director with the local source mentioned above but....the nominator just moved their page to DRAFTspace five minutes before nominating their films....so no choice, if we don't want to editwar and make this very confusing...let's DRAFTitfy this and maybe users can make one or two or three decent pages with redirects and merge of content. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Even taken all together none of the sources really seem viable for writing either an article about the director or the films. The totality of coverage in independent sources across the articles is the local paper announcement and a review of another film in a maybe-reliable indie source ([12]). signed, Rosguill talk 17:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK, maybe, I don't know. But since you draftified the article on the director, I think we should draftify this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Even taken all together none of the sources really seem viable for writing either an article about the director or the films. The totality of coverage in independent sources across the articles is the local paper announcement and a review of another film in a maybe-reliable indie source ([12]). signed, Rosguill talk 17:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: As per my check, I searched for reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject but did not find anything promising that could make this film article notable. I also searched for reviews but found only reviews from blogs and some unreliable sources, which obviously can’t make this article notable. Regarding redirecting and draftification, I would say the director’s article itself is not in the main space due to notability issues, so there’s no point in redirecting. Additionally, there is no article available on Wikipedia for any cast member from the film. I also do not support draftification because the film was released in 2020, and since then, nothing has emerged to make the article notable. Therefore, it is unlikely that anything will change in the future. The single award the film received, the ‘Los Angeles Film Awards,’ is not an exclusive or particularly notable award in my view. Therefore, notability cannot be established based on this alone. GrabUp - Talk 16:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 merge to British Rail departmental locomotives. I see a consensus to retain the content here but move it to a different article and turn this page into a redirect. I hope an editor knowledgeable on the subject will undertake this project of merging this article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives
- British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wholly unsourced article since 2009
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Danners430 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)]
- @sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)]
- Yes I am aware. However, if you continue reading through that guideline, you’ll find more info - specifically regarding whether editors can find sources elsewhere. I’ve done a search through sources that I know of, and through search engines, and can’t find any sources whatsoever. As per that guideline, that seriously casts into question the notability of the article. Danners430 (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)]
- Yes I am aware. However, if you continue reading through that guideline, you’ll find more info - specifically regarding whether editors can find sources elsewhere. I’ve done a search through sources that I know of, and through search engines, and can’t find any sources whatsoever. As per that guideline, that seriously casts into question the notability of the article.
- Delete: This is contextless data with no indication of importance or discussion as a group in secondary sources; as such, it fails ]
- Keep. I found a book source which I think is enough to establish the topic's notability. Smith, Paul; Smith, Shirley (2014). British Rail departmental locomotives 1948-1968 : includes depots and stabling points. Hersham: Ian Allan Publishing. p. 96. ]
Delete perWP:NLIST. These statistics are not given any context or meaning. Eastmain above fails to distinguish between departmental locomotives as a whole (we already have British Rail departmental locomotives) and eastern region departmental locomotives. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)]- Switching to Merge with British Rail departmental locomotives in the interest of developing a consensus. I'd rather we have one of these list articles than three, that's for sure. There is no reason I can see to have separate list articles when one will do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – there is a whole chapter devoted to this subject in volume 10A of Locomotives of the LNER. I have added this source as a reference to the article, along with one for each main section. I don't mind expanding it to one citation for each loco, but it a fair amount of work, and it would be a waste of my time is the article is deleted...
- The source also states the location the locos were used at.
- This is also part of a series of three articles – the second covers the Southern Region and the third every other region. — Iain Bell (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why do we need a series? These are just lists, and British Rail departmental locomotives could easily hold the entire contents of this article if people think it's worth including in the encyclopedia. Splitting them up seems arbitrary and not particularly helpful. We don't need three articles where one would do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge - First and foremost, I concur with Eastmain that sources exist to demonstrate notability, and two of these sources have been integrated into the article as of time of nomination. By definition, GNG is satisfied. Being said, looking at WP:NVEHICLE, this subject falls somewhere between the "type" and "subtype" categories in my view, and leans towards the "subtype" classification, falling under the "type" of British Rail departmental locomotives. Beyond functioning as a quasi-"list of" article, prose in this article focus predominantly on the history and numbering structure, which would substantively improve British Rail departmental locomotives. Ergo, I !vote that the article be merged and redirected to a subsection of that article. Ultimately, I will also cite ease of navigation as a factor to consider here. The linking between these articles, especially without the 'British railway locomotives and miscellany, 1948 to present' navbox on some mobile platforms, makes information unnecessarily segmented across articles. Condensing and combining content here seems the best course of action. Bgv. (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the two sources enough to establish notability? Are there more sources we are missing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect: Although this information is sourced now, I don't think there is much point treating the Eastern region in a separate article (same for SR departmental locomotives, as far as I'm concerned.) — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, and I have just proposed a merge of SR departmental locomotives into the main article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge into British Rail departmental locomotives. A good compromise for this AfD. gidonb (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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
Kai Rooney
- Kai Rooney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I believe that the subject fails
Short: I don't think Kai Rooney is notable.
I wouldn't be against either merging this to Wayne Rooney or just draftifying and seeing how the next few years go (with someone upkeeping the draft as time passes). Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - this article was created by the same user who created Cristiano Ronaldo Jr — see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristiano Ronaldo Jr as this may be a very similar situation. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)]
- Delete or redirect to ]
- Delete, or redirect to threads critiques 23:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)]
- Delete, or redirect to Wayne Rooney—I personally think these types of articles are useless. I also agree with Jéské Couriano above. Anwegmann (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
List of Liverpool F.C. matches in international competitions
- List of Liverpool F.C. matches in international competitions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an unnecessary and redundant collection of matches that Liverpool have played in international competition. An article outlining the club's record in Europe already exists, we do not need a list of every single match. Considering also that the reader can learn what happened in those matches from the equivalent season articles AND from seasonal competition pages. I understand having smaller lists for clubs that don't usually play in Europe. For example, Burnley's article contains only a few matches, each of which are especially notable. But like most big English clubs, Liverpool play in Europe almost every single season; making most matches almost as notable as any domestic match. A discussion to delete this list reached no consensus just over two years ago now; but I truely believe redundant lists like this have no place on Wikipedia. Idiosincrático (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, United Kingdom, and England. Idiosincrático (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – Due to the club's relevance worldwide, I don't see any problems with a list of international matches existing. This is complementary information and can be easily verified. Svartner (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Liverpool F.C. in international football, I don't know why we need two separate articles, there is plenty of room in the main one to house the list. You say in your nomination, unnecessary and redundant collection of matches I completely disagree with that, further more, the information in the main article clearly shows it's not redundant and appears to be historically necessary. You haven't even posted any policy based argument in your nomination either. Govvy (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Frank Cowell
- Frank Cowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Plenty of citations on Google Scholar, enough for WP:PROF#C5 or otherwise, but it is certainly suggestive. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)]
- PS RePEc lists him in the top 100 economists in the UK, out of some 4600 listed. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Nic Read
- Nic Read (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not seeing much to satisfy
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Live Art Development Agency
- Live Art Development Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources not passing
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: As well the 2011 piece by Lyn Gardner of The Guardian which is referenced in the article, searches also find a 2019 piece by the same author. It is partly an interview with the co-founder of LADA, but starts with the writer's overview of the Live Art field and evaluation of LADA's role in it. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- The following doesn't contribute to notability here, but I will also note that the present article doesn't mention organisational controversy during 2023 (news item discussing the closure threat and petition). AllyD (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)]
- The following doesn't contribute to
- Quick google scholar search https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22live+art+development+agency%22&btnG= indicates multiple quality sources referencing the organisation and its significance in global and UK live art, including books https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wyJHEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA12&dq=%22live+art+development+agency%22&ots=M7sejwMOu5&sig=66lY7cxWvj0E_0jIdmuCmVU5DN8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22live%20art%20development%20agency%22&f=false and peer review articles dating back to the early 2000s DrawingDays (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I vote against deletion. While the article has issues, they aren't based on notability. It is clearly a well-cited and long running organisation that is important the UK cultural scene. The article could more clearly lay out the history and challenges of the org, as mentioned above, but this doesn't warrant deletion. genericxz (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator has invoked WP:NONPROFIT applies. It is not necessary for the subject to meet the more stringent guidelines put in place for corporate entities. On this basis - in particular including from the arguments above - there does appear sufficient coverage and citations of the activities of this charity to have a reasonable presumption of notability. ResonantDistortion 22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)]
Zenith Data Systems Challenge Trophy
- Zenith Data Systems Challenge Trophy (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 individual pre-season friendly club match. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, England, Argentina, and Florida. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge – with ]
- Comment It would help to add to the Arsenal season, however that would negate any redirect to Club Atlético Independiente the other team in it. Maybe adding a sponsorship section on Zenith Data Systems with a snippet there? I am still not sure of a redirect. But there are sources, a few on the article, one Guardian source in the external link. Maybe some other sources out there. It could be possible for some basic GNG pass here. Not sure know. Guess I am running at an abstain vote here. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Joe Phillips (English cricketer, born 2003)
- Joe Phillips (English cricketer, born 2003) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject person played only 1 List-A and 2 First class match. Does
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Twinkle1990: - can I just point out NSPORT states that "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline...) - so all NSPORT is saying that people who meet those criteria are considered notable, but not meeting those criteria doesn't automatically make them non-notable. Mdann52 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - meets GNG. Mdann52 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Double Eleven (company)
- Double Eleven (company) (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 failed to find
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Aimee Knight
- Aimee Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hi, I’ve nominated this page for deletion as I’m not sure whether they are relevant enough to warrant an entire wikipedia page, politicians who’ve stood for election and lost with less than 2% of the vote don’t generally get Wikipedia pages, especially when they’ve done nothing of much note after the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxisediting (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, not meeting the ]
- Keep, agree with the above. Fundamentally well covered enough to meet criteria, and little reason to remove well enough sourced information. Flatthew (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, Knight is much more than a failed election candidate as is attested to by the numerous citations to other events covered in the article. JezGrove (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly Talk to my owner:Online 17:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Sexuality and gender, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete already been deleted twice under a different title, and the article contains massive ]
- A lot of the sources in the article are newer than the previous AfDs, I don't really see the relevance of them. AlexandraAVX (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just struggling to figure out why she's notable. She clearly doesn't qualify for NPOL, and her other "event" was being fired. Most of the sources are either local papers or self-published. The article reads like WP:NPF needs to be properly applied as well. I'm struggling to see why this should be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 13:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)]
- I'm just struggling to figure out why she's notable. She clearly doesn't qualify for NPOL, and her other "event" was being fired. Most of the sources are either local papers or self-published. The article reads like
- A lot of the sources in the article are newer than the previous AfDs, I don't really see the relevance of them. AlexandraAVX (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Oliver Brand
- Oliver Brand (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)
Mostly unsourced biography. Provided references are mere directory entries mentioning him and his songs with no biographical information. I found nothing better online to satisfy notability, though it’s entirely possible there may be better sources in print. --Finngall talk 13:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Music, Theatre, and England. --Finngall talk 13:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. None of these songs is notable, and his output, for a lyricist, was not impressive. Compare Adrian Ross. I've deleted the material from the bio that attempted to assert notability by saying that he wrote for a theatre company that W. S. Gilbert had also written for. The bio was written by User:FairlyPuzzled, the only article edited by that user, who appears to be a descendant of Brand's. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
List of people who have lived in Hampstead Garden Suburb
- List of people who have lived in Hampstead Garden Suburb (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)
Wikipedia is not a phonebook. This has been {{
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Walsh90210 (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, obviously. A ridiculous and non-encyclopaedic article which may even breach privacy for the people it lists in the present tense. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: This article seems more like a personal opinion piece than an encyclopedia entry. Waqar💬 17:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Billy Pinnell
- Billy Pinnell (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 fails
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Sports. GamerPro64 04:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: No available online sources at this time to demonstrate ]
- Comment: there's some coverage in newspapers for which he was a contributor, so I don't think it's independent. Hack (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Cruisers Rock Combo
- Cruisers Rock Combo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to meet
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Andrew Hignell
- Andrew Hignell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable cricket writer. Article was previously deleted in 2007, but there is still no evidence of the subject's notability. – PeeJay 11:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Cricket, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Ledbetter. Suriname0 (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Based on a quick search, doesn't seem to meet ]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, History, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Suriname0 found a review of A 'Favourit' Game, reviewed by Jack Williams. I'll add to that a review of Rain stops play, reviewed by Robert Thorpe, ]
- Keep. His books are reviewed in serious publications and he is generally considered the pre-eminent historian of Welsh cricket. Sammyrice (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Surprised to see this nom. Hignell is one of the best known and pre-eminent living cricket historians. Meets ]
- Hi WP:GNG. I couldn't find any when I looked, and the current article doesn't cite any that contain SIGCOV in my opinion! Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)]
- Hi
- Keep. Now up to six reliably published book reviews (of six different books, not counting reviews in specialist cricket web sites), enough for ]
Stuart Gill
- Stuart Gill (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)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iceland, Malta, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Important Ambassador key to negotiations on the completion of the EU’s Single Market. KEEP Cantab12 (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - if not notable then this list List of high commissioners of the United Kingdom to Malta is just useless. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree. The list is not useless even if not all office holders on the list are inherently notable. The ones with knighthoods/damehoods would be considered notable, almost by default. Uhooep (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Virgin Atlantic Flight 024
- Virgin Atlantic Flight 024 (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)
Minor aviation incident, no serious injuries or fatalities, not a hull loss, no impact on aviation regulations or the air transportation system generally; in summary, no
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Carguychris (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- keep This is a clear incident with wounded people. The Banner talk 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi User:The Banner, can you expand a bit beyond direct impacts, here injuries sustained plus damage both to the vessel and to Heathrow Airport? gidonb (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Routine airline mechanical incident that resulted in no deaths or serious injuries, plus WP:NOTNEWS. "Wounded people" is certainly not a viable rationale for keeping the article. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 23:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)]
- Keep. Per ]
- @Gidonb: Could you give more iformation so we can locate the sources, and if possible, check them out for ourselves? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- User:LaundryPizza03, of course! Thanks for asking! It's all through Google Books. gidonb (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Delete There is this: [15], not certain about reliability. Otherwise it's just routine day-by-day reporting, no WP:LASTING. All other information found is either mundane database entries or trivial. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)]
- Oh, wow! Great find! That's already 4 cases of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, this time from 2024! How does such persistent coverage correspond with your conclusion? gidonb (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)]
- SimpleFlying is NOT a reliable source - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#SimpleFlying.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- By WP:LASTING. Hence, also this fourth and very detailed source carries weight, in addition to the other three, as it proves that the interest in this event continues to date. For that purpose (only) the quality of the publication is of little or no relevance. gidonb (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)]
- SimpleFlying does not count towards notability because it isn't reliable - the guideline that you quote does not say that non-reliable sources count for notability - you need to show significant coverage in reliable sources - for the three book sources, there needs to be significant coverage (ie. not just passing mention) - do they show that?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Coverage in Simon does not seem to be very extensive - a mention that the incident occured and discussion about how British tabloid newspapers said nice things about the pilot (in a discussion about how flight crew behaviour in accidents and near-misses. Similarly, Branson's book merely talks about how Branson entertained the flight crew on his private island after the incident - again - not really significant coverag. I can't see the Balmforth source.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- While not all these statements hold water, I will refer you to my previous answer that had already covered the gist of these arguments. gidonb (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Coverage in Simon does not seem to be very extensive - a mention that the incident occured and discussion about how British tabloid newspapers said nice things about the pilot (in a discussion about how flight crew behaviour in accidents and near-misses. Similarly, Branson's book merely talks about how Branson entertained the flight crew on his private island after the incident - again - not really significant coverag. I can't see the Balmforth source.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- SimpleFlying does not count towards notability because it isn't reliable - the guideline that you quote does not say that non-reliable sources count for notability - you need to show significant coverage in reliable sources - for the three book sources, there needs to be significant coverage (ie. not just passing mention) - do they show that?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- By
- SimpleFlying is NOT a reliable source - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#SimpleFlying.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, wow! Great find! That's already 4 cases of
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the sources found by gidonb. Whether people were killed/injured/wounded are made up criteria that have nothing to do with notability and ]
- Redirect to ]
- Weak keep. I'll AGF on the sources given by gidonb. S5A-0043Talk 09:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect The sources given cannot be classified as event criteria. If this were to close as a redirect, I would suggest a redirect to Virgin Atlantic#Incidents and accidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)]
- Delete No need to redirect, IMO, because the incident is covered in Airbus_A340#Accidents, and that's all that is needed. I agree that the Simon book appears to have a mention, but not significant coverage. The Readers Digest coverage seems to be the most extensive, but such a source cannot alone establish GNG. Lamona (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The sources given by gidonb, the Reader's Digest article as well as The Standard, The Guardian, BBC have given coverage, well past 1997. Regardless of how the incident may be, I'm certain that this article shouldn't be deleted on grounds of WP:GNG. Not to mention the landing gear recommendations given to Airbus with this incident. GalacticOrbits (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)]
- People keep mentioning a Readers Digest article - what reference is this? - as far as I can tell, none of the references are from Reader's Digest.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's in Google Books, and I recall having seen the RD version excerpted somewhere (here?) in a religious magazine. It may be above but I'm not seeing it. Lamona (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)]
- Ah, I usually use DuckDuckGo and not Google so that's where it came up: RD. It's from 2004. Lamona (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just to comment, The Standard's article only briefly mentions Flight 24. Most of the article talks about the emergency landing of a Virgin Atlantic Boeing 747. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Delight Mobile
- Delight Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a bundled nomination of five articles on UK MVNOs failing the
The other four are:
- Dalya Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dialog Vizz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Now PAYG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Stan Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rather than continue the slow trickle of individual deletions, I figure it makes more sense to discuss them all at once. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Kingdom, and England. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on
Jonathan Charles
- Jonathan Charles (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
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Radio, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Have now added the archive of his BBC profile, but don't think that changes notability status. Tacyarg (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Michael Lodge
- Michael Lodge (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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I have added five more references to the point where I believe it passes WP:GNG, and I believe further references could be found to expand further. His role in shaping an international regulatory framework for deep sea mining seems significant. Uhooep (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone check out the sources added by Uhooep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep passes WP:GNG per the sources available. They give significant coverage and are from reliable sources. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)]
Dalleth
- Dalleth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete no sources and none when I search. Not notable— Iadmc♫talk 15:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Have added references. Looks notable to me, and I think there will be additional coverage in offline sources and in Cornish-language texts - both whilst it was operating, and in memoirs and historical discussion of this period of the language movement. Tacyarg (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone able to find some sources like those Tacyarg mentioned?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)- Comment. I've added another couple of references, and tagged as citation needed the only sentence which is now not sourced. Probably need a Cornish history or Cornish language expert for more, or at least access to a decent reference library in Cornwall. Tacyarg (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider sources added by Tacyarg.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Edward Parker (police officer)
- Edward Parker (police officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not meet criteria of notability Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Seem to be police officers all over the world with this name... I get hits from the US, Australia and elsewhere, but nothing for this person. I'm not seeing more than a one or two line biography here, unsure of the notability. Lack of sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify Coverage here in the Sydney Morning Herald from 1930 including biographical information [16]. A google books search focused on "Edward Parker" and "Special Branch" does identify a number of hits ([17]). There is potential for meeting notability guidelines therefore as an WP:ATD I suggest moving to draftspace for incubation. ResonantDistortion 10:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning toward delete based on discussion so far, but at least a little more discussion would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Jon Molloy
- Jon Molloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced rugby BLP. All I found were transactional announcements (1, 2, 3) and a routine injury update (1). There seem to be multiple redirect candidates (List of Wakefield Trinity players, List of Salford Red Devils players). JTtheOG (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Some non-routine coverage here. I'm a bit surprised I couldn't find more for someone who made nearly 50 Super League appearances. Perhaps someone can add more using offline sources, as a lot of websites unfortunately haven't kept archives during the time period he played in. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Sufficiently soured in my opinion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep There seem to be a few articles with more than trivial mention. Given the time period, I also suspect there may be additional sources out there that are not reflected by internet sources. At least weak support for keeping. – notwally (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Baffled at the assertions of SIGCOV here. The source linked above is 229 words, of which all but ~5 sentences are direct quotes. The remainder include a couple sentences summarizing what he says in a quote (not independent analysis) and/or relating "what he feels" (ditto), e.g.
But after a lengthy time rehabilitating, Molloy is now over the worst of it.
andThe young forward is hoping to push on and make a big impression with the Giants. With last season almost being forgotten about, Molloy now can set out some targets to work towards – and again it may also involve going out on loan.
, both of which are immediately followed by more detailed quotes from him. Essentially the only secondary independent coverage is a single sentence mentioning he missed a season due to injury. Nowhere near IRS SIGCOV. This is also a British player from the 2010s, well into the internet news era in a country with highly accessible digital media, so I am very skeptical of claims that coverage exists offline somewhere. JoelleJay (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC) - Redirect to List of Wakefield Trinity players: Thorough source analysis by JoelleJay removes the basis for standalone notability. Owen× ☎ 12:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Strong sources to support the importance of that person. Normanhunter2 (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Normanhunter2, which material do you believe is non-routine SIGCOV in IRS sources? JoelleJay (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- My stance on the potential deletion of this article is that it should be retained, primarily due to the credibility of the 9 sources supporting it. These sources, I believe, are robust enough to establish the article's notability.
- Some users here may have stronger opinions based on the WP:SIGCOV of this article, but I see potential for improvement. A 'weak keep' is possible for me because this is a notable topic, and there are likely more substantial sources waiting to be added to enhance the article. Normanhunter2 (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)]
- @Normanhunter2, which material do you believe is non-routine SIGCOV in IRS sources? JoelleJay (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Wakefield Trinity players. Lack of SIGCOV per JoelleJay’s source analysis. This is the better of the two proposed redirect targets as the subject played most of his career with this club. Frank Anchor 18:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Others
Northern Ireland
Others
Scotland
Moray Hunter
- Moray Hunter (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 haven't been able to find evidence of him meeting
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Scotland. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 20:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- weak keep: Some coverage in the Daily Record [18], which we don't have in our source assessment table, but they seem to pass [19]. This story helps [20] and the one in the article should be enough. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced [3] or the Scotsman article cited show notability though, he's barely mentioned in them. That just leaves the Daily Record for significant coverage in my opinion. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 20:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Not enough references at this time, unlikely they can be obtained to achieve ]
- Keep. A fairly well-known figure, it surprised me to see the stub so brief and under-sourced. Not now, thanks to User:Drchriswilliams. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep quite clearly meets "
The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions
" criteria ofWP:CREATIVE. I'd say he's an instantly recognisable face in the UK having been a lead in a number of well known shows. Orange sticker (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)] - Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to the work of Drchriswilliams. Hunter has had major roles, both performing and producing, in multiple notable productions. Toughpigs (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)]
- Keep. As per Mutt Lunker, Orange sticker and Toughpigs. I think this person and their works are well known in the UK. As well as being part of a team that created a cult classic in the form of Absolutely (TV series), he has created radio sitcoms, comedy for children, appeared on multiple television programmes and on the big screen. At the point of nomination for deletion the article was a stub of just 100 words and had just three references- a book, and two links that were more than ten years old, to pages that had moved or been removed. The references now attached to the article show coverage of this person and their work in a range of different titles. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Even as the nominator, I agree - this is definitely a WP:HEY situation, as Toughpigs said. The sources I could find weren't enough, and people found better sources :P Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 16:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)]
- Even as the nominator, I agree - this is definitely a
Nigel Douglas
- Nigel Douglas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to pass
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Martial arts, Rugby union, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Insufficient notability. Most of the references are tenuous or not even relevant at best. Coldupnorth (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also, looking at the history/page creator its arguably Wikipedia:Autobiography. Coldupnorth (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete He is mentioned in some newspaper coverage of a tech company that he was chief executive of, when it was looking for and then secured some substantial investment. The Scotland on Sunday article had his name in the article title and described him as a serial entrepreneur, but I couldn't find much other coverage of him beyond the articles related to his role at GSI. Other links relate to participation in sports, or family members. I don't see that notability has been established here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete "Nigel played sport at a high level. He is a black belt at judo". Vanity page. doesn't meet sports bio notability and ]
- Delete Besides the COI/autobiography issue, there is no evidence of him being notable for either judo or rugby. I found a business database entry for the company he co-founded and it says there are only 11 total employees. There is nothing that shows he meets any WP notability criteria. He has family members that seem more notable than him, but WP notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Others
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly Talk to my owner:Online 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)]
Wales
Ronald Mathias
- Ronald Mathias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article lacks sources and fails
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, not a living person so BLP doesn't apply but fails GNG. GoldRomean (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Entry in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography is sufficient to determine the subject is notable. Curbon7 (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Your link you sent here has no sources inside of it so it's difficult to establish whether it's a good source.Normanhunter2 (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- A biographical dictionary entry written by a well-established academic and published by the National Library of Wales is obviously a reliable source. Additionally the entry literally lists the sources used by the author. Curbon7 (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your link you sent here has no sources inside of it so it's difficult to establish whether it's a good source.Normanhunter2 (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Chairman of the Welsh Labour Party is obviously notable. The Dictionary of Welsh Biography, which is maintained by the National Library of Wales, is clearly a reliable source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - bio in Dictionary of Welsh Biography establishes notability. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Hold on, deleting this article about the Welsh Labour Party Chair seems unnecessary. They're a prominent figure, and the Dictionary of Welsh Biography, a well-respected source from the National Library of Wales, even includes them! Waqar💬 17:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Andrew Hignell
- Andrew Hignell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable cricket writer. Article was previously deleted in 2007, but there is still no evidence of the subject's notability. – PeeJay 11:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Cricket, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Ledbetter. Suriname0 (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Based on a quick search, doesn't seem to meet ]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, History, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Suriname0 found a review of A 'Favourit' Game, reviewed by Jack Williams. I'll add to that a review of Rain stops play, reviewed by Robert Thorpe, ]
- Keep. His books are reviewed in serious publications and he is generally considered the pre-eminent historian of Welsh cricket. Sammyrice (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Surprised to see this nom. Hignell is one of the best known and pre-eminent living cricket historians. Meets ]
- Hi WP:GNG. I couldn't find any when I looked, and the current article doesn't cite any that contain SIGCOV in my opinion! Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)]
- Hi
- Keep. Now up to six reliably published book reviews (of six different books, not counting reviews in specialist cricket web sites), enough for ]
Hugh James (law firm)
- Hugh James (law firm) (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)
Coverage in the sources given and my before search are routine for a law firm, such as opening new offices, new hires etc. The coverage in Legal 500 etc. applies to any law firm worth its salt, and I think it is being well established that appearing in a ranking doesn't make a company notable. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Wales. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in national newspapers and other sources. There is very extensive coverage in The Times. There is also coverage in The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, and The Guardian. There is also coverage in The Scotsman and Reuters and The Week. There is very extensive coverage in WalesOnline. There is very extensive coverage in many periodicals and news sources in Google News. There is a very large number of news and periodical articles that are entirely about this firm. The last time I checked, it is not routine for any British law firm to receive the exceptionally large volume of coverage this one has. That is not surprising because most British law firms are not as large as this one. It is or was the largest Welsh law firm: [22]. James500 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- @James500: There are 87 mentions of the firm in The Times, though one is not about the law firm. Which of those do you consider to be in depth, independent, secondary coverage? Four of those are articles by Alan Collins, a partner at the firm who is also a columnist at The Times, e.g. this. Most of the others are quotations. The article you linked to is four paragraphs about them, as part of 200 Best Law Firms 2019. Please cite some of the best examples? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I was not aware of Alan Collins. It will take me time to do a write up of the available sources. I have a lot to do at the moment. However, we could sidestep this altogether by a page move to Lawyers in Wales, Legal profession in Wales, Legal sector in Wales, Law firms in Wales or something like that, followed by a rewrite. That would satisfy GNG beyond argument eg [23] and other sources, including more modern ones. James500 (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- The search you ran does not bring up all the results in The Times that Google brings up. In the following, I shall confine my attention to The Times, as you requested. The following articles are profiles of Hugh James in The Times: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. These are entire periodical articles entirely about the firm. Such articles are in depth, secondary coverage. I am not aware of any notability guideline that requires more than four paragraphs of coverage. Whether they are independent would depend on whether Alan Collins had any influence over them. I do not know the answer to that question yet. The following articles are about the case of "Edwards on behalf of the Estate of the late Thomas Arthur Watkins (Respondent) v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors (Appellant)" in which the law firm Hugh James Ford Simey was sued for negligence: [29] [30]. The following article is about the internal affairs of the firm: [31]. There are also a lot of articles in The Times about litigation conducted by Hugh James on behalf of clients. For example, at one point they acted for 6,500 people in the Seroxat case, which has a lot of coverage everywhere. James500 (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- @James500: There are 87 mentions of the firm in The Times, though one is not about the law firm. Which of those do you consider to be in depth, independent, secondary coverage? Four of those are articles by Alan Collins, a partner at the firm who is also a columnist at The Times, e.g. this. Most of the others are quotations. The article you linked to is four paragraphs about them, as part of 200 Best Law Firms 2019. Please cite some of the best examples? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, on the basis of multiple articles in general Wales business media, such as Business Live, or the general news outlet Wales Online[32], for example. Admittedly the article is currently poorly sourced but there is ample opportunity to add reliable citations if required. Sionk (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For input on the sources presented by James500.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone check out these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last attempt at looking for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The new references are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Eastmain: which 'new references' are you referring to? None have been added to the article in the last five years? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I believe the recent references significantly improve the article's notability. Waqar💬 17:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Eastmain: which 'recent references' are you referring to? None have been added to the article in the last five years? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete This is a company (law firms are still companies/organizations) therefore GNG/in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
- It appears that James500 above misses half the point of "Independent" sources - not only must we show that the publication is independent but that the content is also independent. The profiles pointed to in The Times above are part of the Top Law Firms series but the profile is a regurgitation of what the company says about itself and then it simple lists activity and cases in which they had clients to represent. There is no in-depth information *about* the *company* in these profiles. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. The next two articles also comment on *cases* in which the company had clients to represent, they do not provide in-depth information about the company. The next article is an interview with their HR Director - no "Independent Content" fails ORGIND.
- We require in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *company* (not their principals, not cases they've been involved in, not their clients, etc). None of the other Keep !voters have identified any sources nor put forward an argument that is supported by guidelines or sources. None of the sources meet the criteria and I'm unable to identify any references that do. HighKing++ 14:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)]
Others
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly Talk to my owner:Online 02:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)]