Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom

Points of interest related to History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

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

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom/archive 2

See also:

• Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland

Scan for United Kingdom related AfDs Scan for United Kingdom related Prods Scan for United Kingdom related TfDs

Antoine Allen (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: Authors, Journalism, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no good sources, and a search for more online is difficult; this is a surprisingly common name (I once had a professor who had the same name, spelled differently). Bearian (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A minor character who appeared in both Doctor Who and Dirk Gently. A search for sources across News, Books, and Scholar yields only mentions in plot summary or ROUTINE coverage of Shada (Doctor Who), and anything outside of Shada are only trivial references to in-universe content or brief mentions of the character's role. I would suggest a redirect to Shada, seeing as the bulk of coverage focuses on Chronotis's role in that story, compared to his role in Dirk Gently. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for now; to Shada (Doctor Who), I guess, even if this is not ideal as the character appears equally in another fiction. That's one more reason why a pure redirect would not be beneficial in my view: There at least needs to be an explanation that the (more or less) same character appears (and is discussed on Wikipedia) elsewhere. Academia and Higher Learning in Popular Culture, p. 18-19 does have brief commentary on the character. Women in Doctor Who, p. 33, comments briefly on how Chronotis treats his assistant. Not much energy for a thorough search myself, so if someone finds more, please let me know. Daranios (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Daranios Perhaps as a compromise a secondary redirect (Either Professor Chronotis (Doctor Who) or Professor Chronotis (Dirk Gently) could be created linking to either Shada (Doctor Who) or Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Daranios. This is a good
  WP:SIGCOV to write something other than plot summary. I also support additional redirects if editors feel they are necessary. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

No evidence of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This one was marked for notability concerns 2 years ago. The provided sources do not establish notability. This is a directory listing. this is 2 short mentions. this appears dead. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and South America. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Academy Blackheath (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

Redirect to its multi-academy trust, Leigh Academies Trust, is a possibility, but I didn't want to go ahead and do this without consulting the community, partly because the Leigh Academy Blackheath article is well-developed for what sources there are, and partly because I'm not entirely convinced that the trust itself is notable (mostly primary sources or local coverage in that article too) - so didn't want to redirect from one article with weak notability to another. Tacyarg (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Leigh Academies Trust. I agree with the nom. that I am not seeing what makes this a notable school. There is a reasonable amount of information on the page, although this is largely just put together from primary sources regarding or reporting its construction. That information could be pared back a bit, but actually would be useful in this article were the school shown to be notable for some other reason. It is a new school, and there is good reason to believe the situation will change at some point, so I would be unhappy with a result that saw the page history hidden by deletion, but the redirect will preserve what is here until such a time as notability is established. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarismcheck.org (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 bit better than the version in draft that I speedied (and I suspect there's admins who'd push the button if I slapped a {{

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Websites, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found the following two academic articles, both published in peer-reviewed education journals, which analyze the efficacy of the plagiarism checker relatively in detail: 1 2. Agree with nominator that many of the news sources are blog post-esque, "list of best plagiarism checker" type articles which are not allowed per
  WP:NCORP but I think these two articles together are sufficient. The article does need work though, as it currently comes across quite promotional, so I could also be sympathetic to draftifying it until someone can rework it. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 20:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Leaning draftify. I don't think the article in its current form is acceptable, but the two academic articles found by @Flipandflopped just above may be enough to write a more concise article on Plagiarismcheck.org. However, it needs a fundamental rewrite and a closer look at the two academic articles to make sure that they review the product in a way that can be integrated into an article. Pichpich (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify I declined this article in the

WP:UPE

. The one of the academic articles FlipandFlopped cied test 14 different tools, and give little information about this tool in detail. The other is more subtantial, but still only gives minimal coverage.

Ironically, for an academic honesty tool, this article seems to be written with a help of an AI. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! These are great advice, well I have tried to make it better. The studies i have mentioned are quite about the subject. I am also sad that you mention that I used AI. This is not honest. That is why such tools as Plagiarismcheck and Integrito are important. I will rewrite according to your comments, please, don't delete it. I will submit for review too. I was confised about moving it to mainspace Robbydillallo (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of irregularly spelt places in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of irregularly spelled places in the United States, article is near-identical. E_F⁵ 13:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:OR jolielover♥talk 15:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I was notified of this discussion because List of places in the United Kingdom with counterintuitive pronunciations was merged back into List of irregularly spelt places in the United Kingdom after this 6 February 2022 discussion. I "created" the page on 27 July 2014, by splitting it from List of places in the United Kingdom and Ireland with counterintuitive pronunciations, per Talk:List of places in the United Kingdom and Ireland with counterintuitive pronunciations#Post-expand include size limit exceeded. The three pages, after the 3-way split, originally were titled:

• List of places in the United Kingdom and Ireland with counterintuitive pronunciations (permalink)
• List of places in England with counterintuitive pronunciations: A–L (permalink)
• List of places in England with counterintuitive pronunciations: M–Z (permalink)

@ 05:14, 12 May 2020

List of places in the United Kingdom with counterintuitive pronunciations

(Ireland is a separate country and i've moved the Republic of Ireland names to a separate article.)

@ 17:10, 22 May 2020 Starbeam2 moved List of places in England with counterintuitive pronunciations to English places spelled irregularly

@ 13:58, 23 May 2020

WP:CONSISTENT

with List of places in England, etc.)

@ 10:39, 16 September 2020

List of irregularly spelt places in England (British English not American English). wikt:spelt

.

@ 23:08, 22 December 2020 Starbeam2 moved List of irregularly spelt places in England to List of irregularly spelt places in the United Kingdom (adding the few non-England placenames)

Hah. The issue that caused me to split the article seems to have gone away, probably because the template(s) causing the problem have since been made more efficient by being rewritten to use Lua modules.

Ireland was split from the UK and Ireland, and moved to List of irregularly spelled English names#Ireland. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of irregularly spelled English names. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In addition to the usual "WP:SHORTCUT" reasons, this has been an unstable mess, leading to the wasting of multiple editors' time, splitting and re-merging, and moving pages around between the UK and Ireland, and confusion about the distinction between irregular pronunciations and irregular spellings. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As with the irregularly spelled names, I'm not sure how one can define irregular spellings in english. The mix of germanic and latin (french) influences makes irregularity in spelling the norm. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Anonrfjwhuikdzz, and even if you could define irregular spelling, this seems like a trivial and non-defining characteristic that violates
  WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Carguychris (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Per Carguychris. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article is also full of
  original research. Azuredivay (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Information Security Forum (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 does not appear to meet the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Organizations, Technology, and United Kingdom. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are plenty of mentions in Gscholar [1] or [2] second one seems to be about the ORG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears that the author for the second reference works for the ISF, which would make it not independent. Let'srun (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I've added sourcing from Infosecurity Magazine, Security Magazine, and a 2013 UK government report, all
  WP:ORG. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: Since !voting, I’ve added a new WP:RS from Carnegie Mellon, copyedited for tone, and cleaned up promotional/unsourced content. HerBauhaus (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Powtoon (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)

Through a web search, it doesn't appear that this is a

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, Internet, Software, and United Kingdom. Bridget (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article reads like an advertisement or product description rather than an article, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia's standards. In addition, there are just three references; one by the company's own page, an article in a technologic publication and a product review. These are not enough to consider the company to be notable. Just to be sure, I searched for more inependent sources on the company to possibly add later on, and found almost nothing beyond brief mentions. NeoGaze (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't think there's
  SIGCOV of the company, but I found several sources about the product: [6], [7], [8], [9]. I'm not entirely sure how to resolve that. Anerdw (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

A single that fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and United Kingdom. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close or a new rationale is needed from the nominator. "Kidney Bingos" is a song, not a band, and evidence is needed of a
  WP:NSONG. (Replaced by revised vote below.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Did you know that people can edit the text of their AfDs? There is no need for a speedy close just because i made a spelling mistake... WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your original text was "Music band that fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV was found." That's one heck of a spelling mistake. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep song charted in the UK, and there are multiple critical reviews of it, all cited in the article.
  ResonantDis_tortion 21:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I dont see how the two PDFs you added prove its notability WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I strongly recommend you review

  ResonantDis_tortion 23:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep: Usually I'm for merger of singles with their parent album, but this one is also an EP AND most importantly the song is potentially detailed in the Wire bio book "Lowdown: The Story of Wire". Also Consequence magazine has an article on 10 songs that defined Wire's sound, which includes a significant enough write up on our song. LastJabberwocky (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It satisfies specific criterion #1 at
  WP:NSONG from having charted in the UK, and it satisfies other requirements in that guideline by receiving specific media coverage as one of Wire's most reviewed individual songs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Association for Heritage Interpretation (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 many references, could only find one on Google News (about some non-notable conference), has not been edited in four years, concerns over references present for 16 years. Unlikely this subject can be brought up to notability thresholds. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Riggs (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)

Can't find any in-depth coverage of this individual from independent, reliable sources. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PC Play & Learn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

One “source” on article: a demo of the game (doesn’t even work anymore). Cannot find other sources. Roasted (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United Kingdom. Roasted (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Zero coverage for this 25 yr old piece of software. I can find copies on the Internet Archive to download, but that's about all. It's mentioned in some old "hey remember these" computer game websites, that's about all there is. Oaktree b (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Virtually no coverage, certainly nothing independent. Non notable software. Ajf773 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No coverage in reliable sources. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Walsh (tennis) (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 tennis player never played an ATP Tour level, Grand Slam or Davis Cup match, there are no references on this article and when I searched I found only very brief, passing mentions usually in results lists and one story on the University of Bath website about his doubles partner which mentioned they played together but nothing substantial about him. I therefore believe this article fails GNG and SIGCOV guidelines and should be deleted. I would have Prodded it but a check of the edit history reveals it was Prodded in 2015 and deProdded using what I think are now defunct criteria. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Tennis, and United Kingdom. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The Challenger doubles title is of a high enough level to meet
  WP:NTENNIS. My search for sources has found a small bio at [10], but his relatively common name is polluting my search results with entries about other people. Iffy★Chat -- 13:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I may be missing something (and I apologise if I am) but the link goes to a diary style article about an under 14s event that, yes mentions Mr Walsh, but is written by one of his fellow 14 year old teammates. Also having a common name does not give you a pass to say the article should exist. How about adding the word tennis to your search? I did so and, as I stated, discovered routine match results and the aforementioned university story about his doubles partner. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That source I found has a few biographical details in the bottom right which si more than you get from a lot of

  WP:ROUTINE coverage. I haven't !voted yet as you opened this AfD only a few hours ago and I want to spend more time looking for sources. Iffy★Chat -- 15:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I've had more time to look for more local sources today, the best one I could find is [11] along with [12] [13] [14]. Still unsure which way this one should go. Iffy★Chat -- 14:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with the nominator that there is a lack of significant coverage to establish notability as most mentions are brief. Note that
  WP:NTENNIS is saying that people who reach achieve in one of the 5 categories listedare likely to have coverage that meets notability guidelines, not that the achievement itself indicates notability. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  And, as a comment, I'm not convinced winning a challenger tournament is a good indicator of whether significant, non-routine coverage would exist for a player.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per lack of
  WP:SIGCOV. If news sources appears, I'll change the vote. Svartner (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Macdonald (scientist) (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: People, Academics and educators, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF? The Prof Test is an alternative method of showing notability, so please ping me. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. This is a young professor who has just gotten an under-40 years old award. The "extensive coverage" of his work is the newspaper reports generated from a single University of Cambridge press release. He appears to have only that single paper in Google scholar, which has mixed him up with a Canadian business professor. It is too soon for him to have an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete:.

• Dr Macdonald has multiple publications: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3880-6563
• His coverage was not the result of a ‘single University press release’ – it was the featured research story on the University homepage – and independently of that, it was covered by BBC, ITV, etc.
• He clearly passes the criteria for WP:PROF (of which you only need to meet one):

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline: His recent article is “in the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric”.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level: His research won the National Innovation Award, the Digital Health Award, and the 40 Under 40 Award.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association: Dr Macdonald is a Fellow at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of the Institute of Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity: His research has appeared in over 100 international news outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayneDavis07 (talk • contribs)

JayneDavis07, our criteria can be confusing for a new editor. Most researchers have multiple publications. What matters is not how many they have published but how other researchers have responded to those publications by citing them in their own papers. That is how we determine significant impact. Most awards, and definitely not young investigator awards, are not what we mean by "highly prestigious". Having newspapers cover ones research when publicized by their employer is common and not considered "substantial impact". "Fellow" is a term used in many different ways. In Macdonald's case the first Fellow is one of the terms used by Cambridge for their employees, so does not qualify. The second Fellow is just the name of the level of dues paying member of the ICRS, not an honorary award given for major contributions to a field. Macdonald is a promising researcher, and may well qualify according to WP:NPROF in the future, but not now. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the impact of his publications see here. He has only been publishing for a few years. We would need to see over a hundred citations per paper for impact, but he is just starting out so hasn't had time to develop. He does have 14 papers in Google Scholar, but his latest one is linked to another author. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete:

Fellow in the Cambridge system is not merely a term for employees. Fellows are voted in by the Governing body and are special honours for “distinguished, learned, or skilled individuals in academia, medicine, research, and industry.” There are different types of Fellowship at Cambridge (Visiting Fellow, Research Fellow, Fellow Commoner, Bye-Fellow, etc) – Dr Macdonald holds a full unrestricted permanent Fellowship and as a result is a full voting member of the Governing Body of the University – the highest honour.

Under the criteria for WP:PROF, Academics only need to meet one of 8 conditions.

1. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

With regard to condition 1 – Dr Macdonald won the 40 Under 40 Award in the Science category. The award has two rounds of voting – the first is an expert panel, the second is a public vote – the award programme is at the national level and is for the nation’s most influential and accomplished leaders.

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

With regard to condition 7 – Dr Macdonald developed and launched a virtual reality public speaking platform to help individuals overcome speech anxiety. He made the platform fully open access, and it is used by people around the world. It is a first-of-its-kind platform – the only to be free and accessible on all platforms and operating systems. Accordingly, it received widespread global media attention - it was covered in over 100 media outlets - including The Times, The Guardian, ITV, BBC, etc, etc. This is outside of a conventional academics remit.

It makes the academic “significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice”.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JayneDavis07 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have not been able to find evidence that Chris Macdonald meets the criteria for GNG or NPROF. As noted by StarryGrandma, most of the publicity appears to be based on a press release from cambridge. Public press about a single VR program is not indicative of academic notability.

• Responding specifically to arguments above concerning NPROF:
  • 1. AltMetric is not good for determining academic notability as any mention on any site online can improve altmetric. If we're considering notability based on academics, then his work needs to be highly cited by other academics, which it is not.
  • 2. The awards he has won do not appear prestigious on a national or international level, names notwithstanding. Think Nobel prize (international) or something like a Priestly medal (national chemistry award in US). I'm not even sure which 40 under 40 list he was included under because there are so many of these lists today and the specific list is mentioned nowhere in his bios. A public vote for an award is also not good criteria for academic notability.
  • 3. Elected member/fellow of a society. A fellow at a uni is not the same thing. Reading through the types of fellow at Lucy Cavendish College, it sounds like he is just a professor (not the same thing as Cambridge wide fellowships --- each college has their own processes). Nor is being a "fellow" at a non-profit think tank funded by a bunch of corporations in the name of "responsibility"
  • 7. Unlikely over 100 international news outlets covered his virtually reality public speaking VR work independently. This is also definitely
    WP:TOOSOON as the impact of the work that was released a month ago is not yet known.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete - based on the above discussion, he lacks significant coverage and fails the PROF test. Bearian (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Taylor (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)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to fail WP:BIO and more specifically, I don't think any of the criteria in
  WP:GNG tag at the top for nearly ten years, so I'm inclined to delete on TNT grounds even if my brief search for other notability failed me. Flip^andFlopped ツ 01:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply

]