Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom

WP:AFD/UK

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.

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

Purge page cache

watch

See also:

Scan for United Kingdom related AfDs

United Kingdom

The Thieves' Labyrinth

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

A novel that I cannot find enough sources for it to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. I think the Historical Novel Society source can be considered reliable, but the "eurocrime" site does not appear to be one, meaning there is only a single potentially reliable source here. I have tried various searches, but have been unable to find any kind of actual reviews or coverage that goes beyond a name-drop in reliable sources of any kind. The closest I found was this article on Kirkus, but the top states that it is a Sponsored Blog post, and so cannot count as a review for the purposes of establishing notability. Neither the author nor book series has an article, so I was unable to identify any potential Redirect or Merge target, and with only one source, it does not pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. As it does have the one source, I figured I would bring it to AFD rather than simply WP:PRODing it, to see if anyone else could find any other potentially reliable sources or reviews for it. Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's very odd that we have an article on the third book and none of the others. Other books in the series have reviews, ones on Proquest from the Lincolnshire Echo, the Times Literary Supplement, this that I am unsure of the reliability of, this interview by a major publisher. A series article could probably be stitched together from these, instead of covering the individual books, but I don't have strong feelings here. Also according to this source "James McCreet" is actually a pseudonym of Matt Stanley. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into an article about the three book series using the sources identified above. The Kirkus review may be usable as the blog is by an experienced writer "J. Kingston Pierce is both the editor of The Rap Sheet and the senior editor of January Magazine." There was an article about the author James McCreet and articles about the other two books in the series but they were all deleted as promotional under speedy deletion criteria G11. I missed the speedy deletion of the other articles but objected to the deletion of this one and edited out the promotional content. The author article was restored to userspace here, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomy (novel)

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

Fails GNG and poor sourcing ((Whatcha gotta say? :) -ThaFDA)) (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Series Adventures. Found a few passing mentions, a weird linguistics sources that uses this as an example without commentary, and an interview with the author about the book. Nothing usable for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per above. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above rationales. No indication of external notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at the O2 Arena

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the O2 Arena (2nd nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Weakly stated inclusion criteria does not match title. mikeblas (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at Liverpool Arena

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at Liverpool Arena (2nd nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. mikeblas (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Pottery Throw Down series 1

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

The sources used explain the tv series as a whole. So, it might be a good merge/redirect candidate with just the ratings pushed through. The target would be the main article The Great Pottery Throw Down.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The content itself appears to have no issues, but does not stand alone as an article and thus should be moved into the main article. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article. The result tables of the individual episodes seem overkill, but the result summaries and the ratings are probably worthwhile. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Rugby

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

Recreated and deleted countless times, was recreated by a indefinitely blocked editor with the edit summary "the day wikipedia admins decide not to be DUMB, this will be allowed as an article." Still lacking secondary sources. No indication of in-depth secondary source coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union, Websites, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noise in the Machine (EP)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Redirect was reverted by creator.

All sources are music videos, primary sources, and databases. Nothing found in secondary sources to support notability for this EP. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see only one review article - [1], otherwise nothing, suggesting that there is very little interest in the EP. Fails NALBUM. Hzh (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Massive Ego per nomination. Found no additional sources myself. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Burbea

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

Biography of a Buddhist teacher fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG. The sourcing (both in the article and in WP:BEFORE search) is to Burbea's own writing and works, as well as sources not independent from him (eg the Hermes Amara Fdn). No WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and United Kingdom. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced paragraphs need more significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 17:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirmai Ghebremariam

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

Article of low relevance considering it is the biography of a living person and a current politician Alon9393 (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, Ambassadors are not considered presumptively notable. The article has only one reference, and (WP:NEXIST!) I can't find any coverage in reliable sources focusing on the individual himself; only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that verify he was, indeed, an ambassador. No significant coverage of his involvement in any major diplomatic event, either, nor his involvement in crafting any important treaty or bilateral agreement — two criteria which WP:DIPLOMAT (merely an essay, I know!) says may suggest notability. A minor, non-notable figure who doesn't merit an article. GhostOfNoMeme 22:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Searches of Google Books and Google Scholar also yield nothing of value, either. Almost entirely just passing mentions in various years' issues of the Statesman's Yearbook which do nothing beyond confirm his role as ambassador, as in "Ambassador: Ghirmai Ghebremariam" in the list of diplomatic representatives under the entry for Eritrea. GhostOfNoMeme 22:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GhostOfNoMeme's searches demonstrate that WP:BIO is not met. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey Crunch

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

It's a biscuit. Cookie for our US readers. References are no use for WP:V, fails WP:GNG, WP:BEFORE reveals nothing useful 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless WP:Library convinces upcoming participants otherwise, redirect to McVitie's § Biscuits. First paragraph's a slogan; the rest are mere media mentions. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Sierra Leone, London

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

Fails WP:ORG. Article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Sierra Leone, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London as a {{R from list entry}} per all the other nominations. Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Togo, London

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

Fails WP:ORG. 1 of the 2 sources is its own website, the other is the UK foreign ministry. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London per the outcome of literally every other prod and AfD about embassies and high commissions in London that has been closed after redirection was suggested, and a trout for the nominator for wasting community time by continuing to AfD plausible search terms with a very clear target. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some people suggest other targets like bilateral relations articles. There is no such thing as "speedy redirect". Never heard that in my 17 years on WP. I would have prodded this but one editor complained they need to go to AfD. LibStar (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing you say will discourage me from nominating embassy articles for deletion. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds WP:POINTY. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly a response to my reasons for nominating for deletion. Do you acknowledge there are in fact more than 1 possible target if redirected. Do you acknowledge that "speedy keep" is only used by you and not a community accepted start for a vote? LibStar (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the biggest time wasters are those who created these embassy articles as stubs and questionable notability. At least one of these editors is now permanently banned. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing what should happen with one article out of 6+ million articles on the project. We typically have 70-100 AFD nomination proposals every day. Let's all be CIVIL and not get personal here. We want participation in each AFD in order to come to the clearest understanding of consensus and disputes between editors tends to drive away editors unless they want to join in on the dispute and those are the editors who we don't want here. The focus is the article, not the discussion participants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Wilkins College

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

The subject doesn't appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia. toweli (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Christianity, United Kingdom, England, and Wales. toweli (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 14:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only the lack of WP:SIGCOV and the fact that there is not a single source cited in the article, I found little to prove widespread, independent secondary coverage. GuardianH (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Alternative (England, Wales and Scotland)

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

Article subject demonstrates extremely limited levels of notability in terms of coverage actually about the group in question. Search online doesn't reveal any extensive coverage to justify a distinct article for it. Suggest therefore this article be redirected to International Socialist Alternative. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For context, previous state of article prior to recent edits was sourced with 19 references comprising:

- 11 via self-published blogs or websites of which 8 were the website of Socialist Alternative and other ISA sections and the remaining three self-published pieces by other communist groups. This is a fundamental breach of

WP:SELFPUB and more importantly WP:ABOUTSELF on the grounds that an article must not be primarily based on self-published information.

- 8 independent sources where the majority of them were dead links or didn't actually make any mention of Socialist Alternative yet were being used as inline citations to imply they were (such as this one about COP26 protests[2]).

As a result of this the article, when reduced to the only sources that could be judged suitable for inclusion (and even one of those is questionable) there is extremely limited demonstration of meeting notability requirements for a standalone article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Time of Year (song)

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

I have been unable to find significant coverage of the song in reliable sources, as required by WP:NSONG. The Promotion section is sourced to a self-published database of Runrig set lists and performance dates and other citations are to the charts. This article should be redirected to Runrig discography, where its chart performance is already documented. Posted with permission: Goodreg3 opposes for the reasons discussed on his talk page and this AfD discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, United Kingdom, and Scotland. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 17:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bolgar

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

Poorly sourced stub, fails GNG. Wire723 (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wire723 (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete need more significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 13:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created this article, though I am pretty certain I was not logged in at the time, and I completely agree that it should be deleted. Wikipedia's rules on notability have obviously tightened up a *lot* in the last two decades, and the site does not need anorak trivia with no notability beyond that small and self-perpetuating niche - it fills me with embarrassment, the stuff I thought was acceptable here two decades ago. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of landlord Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom

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

Fails WP:LISTN, very limited discussion about importance of MPs being landlords among indepdent RSs, with the whole list just being primary sourced from the UK Parliament. WP:UNDUE. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 01:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 01:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:UNDUE SecretSpectre (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom + keeping the list up to date will be a lot of work, as MPs and their properties come and go. Wire723 (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is already met by the category: :List of Landlord MPs of the United Kingdom DimensionalFusion 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
- Notability: This topic passes WP:LISTN (WP:NLIST). This guideline states "Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".
  - There are multiple reliable sources discussing this group, naming many of those included in it, in this parliament and in previous ones (as far back as 2014, at least, up to 2024): Sky, Guardian, FT, BBC, Jacobin, Tribune, Yahoo Finance, Big Issue, Channel 4, New Statesman.
- This alone is sufficient reason to keep, but for completeness I'll address other arguments made above:
  - Primary sources: Given that notability is established by the above secondary reliable sources, the use of primary sources alone is not an argument for deletion. The primary sources in this article are used for verifiability, not notability.
    - These primary sources are suitable as, per WP:PRIMARY:
      - they are "reputably published", by UK Parliament
      - there is no interpretation of the sources; they are only used to make "descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" (NB. per WP:CALC, "Routine calculations do not count as original research"..)
      - per WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source". This source, UK parliament’s register of members’ interests, is explicitly mentioned by name in coverage from at least the FT, Sky, Guardian.
  - Undue weight: As I understand it, this is part of the NPOV policy about the content of an article, not whether an article should exist or not. As above, notability is established by reliable sources. The "background" section of the article attempts to keep due weight between criticism of landlord MPs and the view that these criticisms are too simplistic, but I'd welcome any improvements on this.
  - Duplicates a category: WP:NOTDUPE states "Arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided."
Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A signifcant portion of RS coverage is just to do with the scandal involving Jas Athwal. I do not consider a few RS articles on some MPs being landlords to sufficently justify a a list on the subject. I mean there were a number of articles around the time of private gentlemen's only (until this year) clubs like the Garrick Club and the MPs who were memebers of them but that does not justify list creation in my opinion. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 19:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but generalise to an article: the topic of landlord MPs has indeed been raised in the past, but the list at present is a snapshot of the situation as at the most recent declarations of interests. (How often do they have to update? Annual declaration, or as circumstances change?) The links above show earlier figures. A useful article could assemble all those various figures from articles, while including the current list. I have more doubts about the category Category:Landlord members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was added, unsourced, to a couple of items on my watchlist. I don't think it's a useful category, and I don't think it will be maintained. In both the category and the list there is what I see as a problem in including MPs who are renting out their own permanent home while relocating to their constituency or London, ie landlords of a single residential property, almost "amateur" landlords, with those who have a portfolio of properties "professional" landlords. This distinction is made visible in the list, but not in the category. The present list could be made more useful if it included data from past parliaments. The category cannot be justified unless a source (the register of interests) is added to each MP's page, and is then checked every time there is a new register to ensure that those who are no longer landlords are removed: unrealistic. A list can be more clearly identified as a snapshot in time. PamD 19:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated the category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 9#Category:Landlord members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. PamD 19:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @PamD; this is a fair rationale RE: the category and useful feedback on the article. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, the article has transient notability, and WP:NOTNEWS. Why? The article appears to have been created soon after this news story broke. Many MPs for hundreds of years have been property landlords, and they can't all have owned perfect properties; but now it's suddenly newsworthy. The article is titled "List of landlord Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom", but that title does not qualify the inclusion criteria by timeframe - however, it lists sitting MPs, so to avoid WP:UNDUE, the article should be expanded to include former MPs who had a property portfolio, and I expect that if it is to be at all comprehensive, it would soon become unwieldy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yes, historically most MPs would have been country gentlemen, landowners and landlords of vast acreages and dozens of peasant hovels! If this list/article is to survive, it needs much clearer definition of its scope. PamD 12:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand for the reasons stated by Jonathan Deamer and by Redrose64 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejakyo (talk • contribs) 18:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete are we going to include every MP for the past hundreds of years? Every peer, MSP, Assembly member? What happens if an MP buys a property, that we aren't aware of, and therefore aren't included even if they are a landlord. I don't think this article will work. DotCoderr (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard McDonald (academic)

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. He worked for some important organizations in non-major roles. I see no sign of any influential scientific publication of his on a reputable journal, or any terminal degree for that matter. This looks more like a resume of a postgraduate student than anything else. Badbluebus (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Religion, and United Kingdom. Badbluebus (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody can find evidence of cites or reviews. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
His publication is released in December, and so these are forthcoming JapaneseWoodblocks (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, creation of page was due to unusual and niche academic field of minority religions in prison, which is the topic of his first publication due for release in 2024. His terminal degree was completed at Birkbeck Dept. Of Psychosocial Studies but I can’t find a citation for this so I didn’t include. On the ‘non major roles point’ - understood, but he held the role ‘Head of Policy’ for HMPPS in 2023 which feels notable? Apols if I’ve made it sound like an advert JapaneseWoodblocks (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for making this page. If I can make the case a bit more: is a nascent academic but in a niche and unusual field of writing about Norse paganism in prison which distinguishes his contribution and his first publication is a book chapter with Bloomsbury coming out in December.

He sits on various policy and governance boards for national organisations including charities (Traveller movement) and the Magistrate’s association. I know he sits on several more including the Uni of Sheffield but can’t cite this.

I don’t want it to read like an advert, just an encyclopaedia entry for a niche academic who works at the intersections of religion and penology. JapaneseWoodblocks (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find anything to contribute to notability. ResonantDis_tortion 23:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. No sign whatsoever of NPROF notability. NAUTHOR would generally require multiple works with multiple reviews (a single work reviewed work would be better handled with an article about that work). A single work is unlikely to cut it, even if reviews could be found. Little sign of GNG notability (see WP:INTERVIEWS concerning the interview with the Magistrates Association), although the relatively common name may make searching tricky. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skye (song)

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

I could not find significant coverage of this single in reliable sources. Fenix Funeral Directors is a website for a funeral home, and the source is titled "Top 10 Runrig Songs For a Funeral". This article can be redirected to Runrig discography, where its chart information is recorded. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, United Kingdom, and Scotland. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Doing a BEFORE search is annoying here because the band's origin in the Isle of Skye is frequently mentioned, but this song doesn't appear to have been written about. Mach61 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Goodreg3 opposes for the reasons discussed on his talk page and this AfD discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to point out the recently added subsection regarding coverage of high profile controversy around the charting position of "Skye", which would indicate a degree of notability. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two Music Week articles are primary sources, so they don't establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What more do you seriously want? I have provided information on what was clearly a significant event at the time. On one hand, you point out "self published sources" as not being enough, and on the other, you are equally unhappy with published magazines. What is it you are exactly looking for? Goodreg3 (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, significant coverage of a song is something like a review, an analysis of its themes or structure, or a discussion of its role in popular culture. I listed some sources that I would consider significant on the talk page for An Ubhal as Àirde (The Highest Apple), which I did find to be a notable single by Runrig. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brook Driver

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Awards won are not major. IMDb would indicate WP:TOOSOON. Main claim to notability seems tied up with Swede Caroline, released only this year. Only remotely significant coverage about the person from the cited sources is the second one – a blog interview. An online search shows many sites that mention the subject's name, but they say nothing more about him. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 18:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 18:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm an intern working for the studio itself (specifically Brook Driver). I apologize about the source misinformation. I'm doing my best to improve it, but I'm still incredibly new to this internship and even Wikipedia editing itself. I request more time for it to get fixed up. We're all very busy, so it will take some time, but it will be improved. If anything, some tips on how to improve it would be fantastic. Thanks! MNLewis21 (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MNLewis21: to avoid deletion, the article needs to show evidence of significant coverage of Driver himself – not Deadbeat Films or other affiliated topics – in reliable, independent sources. None of the sources currently cited in the article meets that requirement, as they are either non-independent (e.g. deadbeatfilms.co.uk), blogs (e.g. blog.finaldraft.com; see WP:BLOGS), or trivial mentions of Driver (e.g. deadline.com). Unfortunately, articles that are started through conflict-of-interest editing, as this one apparently was, are very unlikely to meet Wikipedia's topic notability and sourcing requirements, so usually end up being deleted. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do very much appreciate your help and clarifications. If anything, I'll be backing these up and, if possible, we can start fresh. MNLewis21 (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MNLewis21 , it definitely doesn't work that way here as you thought. Gabriel (……?) 17:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksons Fencing

AfDs for this article:

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

Stub about a small business. Single source, to itself. Nothing to indicate Notability. May have a COI advertising element. KJP1 (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NB. Appears to have previously been deleted in 2009 and re-introduced in 2016. The creating editor’s editing is almost completely devoted to inserting mentions of the company into articles, usually sourced to the company itself. KJP1 (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources. Xegma(talk) 17:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anemic WP:PROMO violation. Nate • (chatter) 00:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a firm lacking in independent references. Searches find a listing source confirming that their security fences meet/exceed a standard spec. for palisade fences, but that is insufficient to demonstrate notability here for the firm. AllyD (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Couzens

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

Basically, wp:oneevent. I'm not suggesting lack of notability, but I believe that notability is wholly dependant upon the Murder of Sarah Everard, which has a section on him. I suggest a redirect to this article suffices. TheLongTone (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Police, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Defending the Inclusion of Wayne Couzens as a Standalone Article

I would like to respectfully argue that the Wikipedia article on Wayne Couzens meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines under several key criteria, and that merging his biography into the "Murder of Sarah Everard" page would be inappropriate and offensive for a number of reasons.

1. Notability of the Perpetrator

According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people, a person is considered notable if they have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and "this coverage is necessary to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the person" (WP

).

Wayne Couzens, as a former police officer convicted of one of the most high-profile crimes in recent UK history, has received extensive coverage from reliable sources, including major media outlets, government reports, and legal proceedings.

The case has also led to widespread public and political discourse about police conduct, systemic failures, and the safety of women, all of which are directly tied to Couzens’ role as the perpetrator.

In terms of precedent, several other perpetrators of serious crimes have their own standalone pages on Wikipedia, including:

Ian Huntley (Soham murders)

Harold Shipman (serial killer and former doctor)

Myra Hindley (Moors murders)

Peter Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper)

These articles provide detailed biographies of the individuals alongside their criminal acts, separate from the pages dedicated to the victims or the crimes themselves.

2. Biographical Relevance

Couzens’ background as a police officer and his use of this position to facilitate the crime is highly relevant and should be clearly documented. The Murder of Sarah Everard article should focus on the victim, the public response, and the broader societal implications of the crime, rather than offering an in-depth exploration of the perpetrator’s life and career.

Merging Couzens’ biographical information into the Sarah Everard page risks overshadowing the victim’s story, making it appear as if his personal history is just a footnote to the crime. This would be deeply inappropriate, given the broader context and the need to respect Everard’s memory.

WP

highlights that content about living people in relation to crimes must be handled carefully, but in this case, Couzens is no longer a figure whose biography demands such cautious anonymity. His crime and identity are now of historical significance due to the legal verdict and widespread social implications.

3. Offensiveness of Merging with Sarah Everard’s Page

The proposal to merge Couzens’ biography into the article on Sarah Everard’s murder is not only factually inappropriate but also offensive to Sarah Everard’s memory. WP

places a premium on the dignity and humanity of people mentioned in Wikipedia articles, especially those who are victims of serious crimes. Couzens is a perpetrator of a horrific crime, and merging his biographical details with Everard's would compromise her story by forcing her tragedy to be unduly intertwined with his background.

The focus of the "Murder of Sarah Everard" article should remain on Everard’s life, the circumstances of her tragic death, and the public reaction, while Wayne Couzens deserves his own page to detail his personal life, background, and the circumstances that led him to commit the crime.

Forcing the victim's page to share space with such detailed information about her killer could inadvertently give him undue prominence in what should be an article that memorializes her. This is an important consideration in maintaining an ethical balance on Wikipedia.

4. Public Interest and Systemic Failures

Couzens’ crime has sparked intense public discourse around police misconduct and the failure of authorities to properly vet individuals in positions of power. The independent investigation into how someone like Couzens was allowed to remain in the police force despite warning signs (including prior allegations) has led to nationwide calls for police reform.

This sets a unique precedent for Couzens, as his role as a police officer who exploited his position plays a crucial part in his notoriety and makes him deserving of a separate article.

This also differentiates him from other murderers who have not had such widespread institutional and political consequences arise from their actions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the standalone article on Wayne Couzens serves the following critical purposes:

It adheres to Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for individuals.

It preserves the dignity of Sarah Everard by keeping the focus of her article on her life and tragic death, while documenting Couzens' criminality and abuse of power separately.

It follows the precedent set by other criminals who have committed serious offenses and received standalone articles.

It addresses the public’s need for information on systemic police failings that allowed Couzens to remain an officer, a subject that deserves its own discussion.

For these reasons, I respectfully submit that the article on Wayne Couzens should remain a separate entry and not be merged into the "Murder of Sarah Everard" article. Eatlandlords (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Apparent canvassing about this AfD on Reddit here.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder of Sarah Everard. Agreed with nominator, the subject is notable in the context of the crime. I see no reason the subject warrants a seperate article. ResonantDis_tortion 23:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. This is an unnecessary WP:CFORK; the subsection in the Murder of Sarah Everard article was and is the right place for all this info. MIDI (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nominator. Info is repeated unnecessarily. -Kez (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Everything is covered in that article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per nom. wholly unnecessary and complete repetition NyctoReveric (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP: SNOW. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defending the Inclusion of Wayne Couzens as a Standalone Article

I would like to respectfully argue that the Wikipedia article on Wayne Couzens meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines under several key criteria, and that merging his biography into the "Murder of Sarah Everard" page would be inappropriate and offensive for a number of reasons.

1. Notability of the Perpetrator

According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people, a person is considered notable if they have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and "this coverage is necessary to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the person" (WP

).

Wayne Couzens, as a former police officer convicted of one of the most high-profile crimes in recent UK history, has received extensive coverage from reliable sources, including major media outlets, government reports, and legal proceedings.

The case has also led to widespread public and political discourse about police conduct, systemic failures, and the safety of women, all of which are directly tied to Couzens’ role as the perpetrator.

In terms of precedent, several other perpetrators of serious crimes have their own standalone pages on Wikipedia, including:

Ian Huntley (Soham murders)

Harold Shipman (serial killer and former doctor)

Myra Hindley (Moors murders)

Peter Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper)

These articles provide detailed biographies of the individuals alongside their criminal acts, separate from the pages dedicated to the victims or the crimes themselves.

2. Biographical Relevance

Couzens’ background as a police officer and his use of this position to facilitate the crime is highly relevant and should be clearly documented. The Murder of Sarah Everard article should focus on the victim, the public response, and the broader societal implications of the crime, rather than offering an in-depth exploration of the perpetrator’s life and career.

Merging Couzens’ biographical information into the Sarah Everard page risks overshadowing the victim’s story, making it appear as if his personal history is just a footnote to the crime. This would be deeply inappropriate, given the broader context and the need to respect Everard’s memory.

WP

highlights that content about living people in relation to crimes must be handled carefully, but in this case, Couzens is no longer a figure whose biography demands such cautious anonymity. His crime and identity are now of historical significance due to the legal verdict and widespread social implications.

3. Offensiveness of Merging with Sarah Everard’s Page

The proposal to merge Couzens’ biography into the article on Sarah Everard’s murder is not only factually inappropriate but also offensive to Sarah Everard’s memory. WP

places a premium on the dignity and humanity of people mentioned in Wikipedia articles, especially those who are victims of serious crimes. Couzens is a perpetrator of a horrific crime, and merging his biographical details with Everard's would compromise her story by forcing her tragedy to be unduly intertwined with his background.

The focus of the "Murder of Sarah Everard" article should remain on Everard’s life, the circumstances of her tragic death, and the public reaction, while Wayne Couzens deserves his own page to detail his personal life, background, and the circumstances that led him to commit the crime.

Forcing the victim's page to share space with such detailed information about her killer could inadvertently give him undue prominence in what should be an article that memorializes her. This is an important consideration in maintaining an ethical balance on Wikipedia.

4. Public Interest and Systemic Failures

Couzens’ crime has sparked intense public discourse around police misconduct and the failure of authorities to properly vet individuals in positions of power. The independent investigation into how someone like Couzens was allowed to remain in the police force despite warning signs (including prior allegations) has led to nationwide calls for police reform.

This sets a unique precedent for Couzens, as his role as a police officer who exploited his position plays a crucial part in his notoriety and makes him deserving of a separate article.

This also differentiates him from other murderers who have not had such widespread institutional and political consequences arise from their actions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the standalone article on Wayne Couzens serves the following critical purposes:

It adheres to Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for individuals.

It preserves the dignity of Sarah Everard by keeping the focus of her article on her life and tragic death, while documenting Couzens' criminality and abuse of power separately.

It follows the precedent set by other criminals who have committed serious offenses and received standalone articles.

It addresses the public’s need for information on systemic police failings that allowed Couzens to remain an officer, a subject that deserves its own discussion.

For these reasons, I respectfully submit that the article on Wayne Couzens should remain a separate entry and not be merged into the "Murder of Sarah Everard" article. Eatlandlords (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Outside of the decision, which seems simple, straying into bludgeoning territory here, and I suspect canvassing off of wikipedia given a thread appeared about this nomination of the AskUK subreddit Dexxtrall (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Possible without notoriety and writing in the form of being known for an event in which you were involved, otherwise there is nothing that stands out by itself. --Alon9393 (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Venezuela, London

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

Fails WP:ORG. No indepth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and Venezuela. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London, just like every single other one of these articles about embassies and high commissions that have been brought to AfD or PROD recently. There is no point wasting community time at AfD, just redirect them - none of the PRODs that I've redirected have been reverted, none of the AfDs I've been aware of have closed as anything other than redirect when that option has been presented (one was deleted after nobody suggested it in the AfD, I recreated it as a redirect and that hasn't been challenged). Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these articles were previously deleted at AfD. I don't understand why everything must now be a redirect. I personally don't think someone searching Wikipedia for "High Commission of Seychelles, London" is going to be well-served by being taken to a lengthy list of diplomatic missions, have to scroll all the way down to Seychelles and simply be given an address. I think that list, which has no secondary sources, completely fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY as "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated." AusLondonder (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: I know it's only a small part of your comment, but readers don't necessarily have to scroll all the way down. Redirects can target specific list entries (using anchors), not just sections. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a diplomatic headquarters of a conflictive country in Great Britain, therefore it must be maintained and expanded, as soon as possible my position is to maintain it. Alon9393 (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your comment doesn't make sense. Please have a look at WP:DISCUSSAFD for some information on the types of arguments to make at AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and Alon9393 makes no argument as to how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deadbeat Films

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

Not a notable film studio, as its IMDb entry clearly shows. Tellingly, none of the cited sources even mention the studio. Additionally, notability is not inherited from films that the studio happened to be involved in. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and United Kingdom. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Per nominator's reason. Came across the page and had to make my own find out. The notable movies never claimed in any reliable source that Deadbeat Films was their movie studio production. Maybe reason why it was not even listed on the IMDB platform. So many unreliable source which also fails WP:GNG of the subject article.--Gabriel (……?) 22:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm an intern working for the studio itself. As per my other comment, I apologize about the source misinformation. I'm doing my best to improve it, but I'm still incredibly new to this internship and even Wikipedia editing itself. I request more time for it to get fixed up. We're all very busy, so it will take some time, but it will be improved. If anything, some tips on how to improve it would be fantastic. Thanks! MNLewis21 (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm an intern working for the studio itself. It's just smaller than what we're used to and it's in England. I'm not entirely sure where you live, but I definitely think it's more Indie British than anything Well Known American. I've just been hired on, and I believe part of my job is to freshen up and work on the various Wikipedia pages for the studio, its films, and its employees. Another intern started what I'm working on right now. It's a bunch of busy people on board and just needs its due time to cook in the oven. Thanks! MNLewis21 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Can you further explain more about your internal team and their works towards Wikipedia they intend to get started on. You mentioned some of your colleagues has started what you were currently working on. Can you as well list those draft. That will help. Also is the current article creator of the “Deadbeat Films” part of your internal team. Things needs to be clearer. Gabriel (……?) 19:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'm not entirely sure, unfortunately. I believe the one who initially wrote and researched the articles relating to the studio and its employees has left the company since they were also an intern, but I can't quite confirm that. I've been keeping in touch with my employer Brook Driver, a creative director and screenwriter for the studio, about the articles' status and the advice I'm receiving (thank you very much, by the way). They're still trying to kickstart getting their online presence more well known and complete. As for drafts within the studio itself I don't have access to that just yet. MNLewis21 (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one that created the initial Wikipedia article for Deadbeat Films. I was an intern under Brook Driver at the time and designed this page. The creation of the page was done for no compensation and was based upon research of my own in an attempt to avoid biases and to follow the terms and rules of Wikipedia. I do acknowledge though that this was the first page I had ever created, so any issues present are all my own. I am willing to assist in any way I can in fixing the page if possible. I do believe that the company does meet the standards of having a Wikipedia page, especially when looking at pages for other previously released independent films. This article from TheGuardian directly talks about their recent film Swede Caroline and namedrops Brook Driver specifically: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/apr/17/swede-caroline-review-marrow-mockumentary-is-gourd-for-a-laugh This article from Little Black Book specifically discusses the merging of Deadbeat Films with Toma Productions (Direct connection to The Devil's Harmony): https://lbbonline.com/news/deadbeat-films-appoints-anthony-toma-as-head-of-production CFORMAN12 (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The official Swede Caroline poster also does feature the Deadbeat Films logo on it: https://www.swedecaroline.com/synopsis/ CFORMAN12 (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources fail to demonstrate the notability of the studio. The Guardian source is a film review, not a company profile, and doesn't mention "Deadbeat Films" anywhere. As I stated in the AfD nomination, the studio doesn't gain notability from its people or products. Unless I'm mistaken, the LLB source looks like a press release. And the film website is, similarly, not an independent source. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 17:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the note of communication with Brook himself: I'm in America and he is in England, so the time zones have a large gap in between them. We are doing our best to communicate in a timely manner despite this hurdle. MNLewis21 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coach Trip series 8

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

Has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade. No objection if anyone merges it to Coach trip but it does not seem notable enough to deserve its own article Chidgk1 (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SPLITLIST applies. Every of the 18 series has a page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:NOTDATABASE An endless list of nothing. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Tappin

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

The subject appears to be a non-notable individual, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. Most of the sources cited in the article and on the talk page are passing mentions, interviews, primary, routine coverage, or hearsay, none of which provide in-depth coverage. The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, off-wiki evidence suggests potential undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry. GSS ^💬 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. GSS ^💬 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the talkpage of this article there are lot of significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 03:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xegma Do you really research on topics or just go on voting 'delete' at AfDs? Did you check the talk page of this article? There are significant coverage in China Daily and The Telegraph and all are present in the talk page. Even nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. Unless it is a UPE issue, there is no reason to delete. It is a Keep. Hitro talk 21:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles you are referring to seem to be paid promotional pieces, structured as interviews, which often include sections like "bio" and "CV" at the end of the article—something rarely found in genuine editorial news. It's a common feature of sponsored content. Additionally, the Telegraph article lacks an author byline, which raises questions about whether it was even produced by their editorial team. GSS ^💬 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The China Daily article, the one I am referring to, was written by Andrew Moody. I hope you are not implying that Andrew Moody, a renowned journalist and recipient of the Friendship Medal (China) from the Chinese government, was just an editor of paid promotional pieces.

The Telegraph article, which is almost 16 years old, appears to be written by Dominic White and must have been published on the old format of the website of The Telegraph which was significantly different from current one. Please check the other articles of same years, you won't find author bylines.

Apart from those, I also see WP:SIGCOV in this, a South China Morning Post article.

I see that this BLP article was created on Wikipedia in 2008 and being nominated for deletion now due to some recent UPE activities. IMO, it's more appropriate to restore the best version of the article rather than delete it entirely. If you have a case that this has been a UPE product from the start then I'll rest my case. Hitro talk 15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HitroMilanese, I respect your expertise, but I must point out that all the articles you've mentioned are essentially interviews, which do not meet the standards of independent sources required by WP:GNG. For instance, the China Daily article explicitly states in the second paragraph, "Steve Tappin says," while the Telegraph article includes phrases like "But Tappin, whom I meet" and "Talking to him, it almost seems..." Similarly, the South China Morning Post piece follows the same pattern. These sources rely heavily on hearsay and fail to meet the criteria for WP:IS.

Regarding the absence of a byline in The Telegraph, I managed to find many articles, both older and from the same time period (even 2008), with proper author attribution, such as this. It's unfair to say the byline is missing simply because it could have been published in an older format of the website, where bylines were not prominently displayed.

Additionally, the article was created by a single-purpose account (SPA) with no contributions outside this topic. Given the subject's history of hiring freelancers to update his article, it is highly likely that the SPA either has a conflict of interest or was hired to create this article. GSS ^💬 06:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I am posting on behalf of Steve Tappin, so I assume my vote would not count, but I just wanted to bring to your attention that Mr. Tappin meets the criteria for WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. As WP:AUTHOR, if there are multiple reviews of his work he would qualify. Below are some links to his book reviews
https://www.managementtoday.co.uk/books-special-steve-tappin-tells-us-secret/article/845739 - book review
https://timesnewsgroup.com.au/geelongtimes/living/renowned-authors-to-share-secrets-on-personal-development/ - Book review
https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-85788-513-2 - The Secrets of CEOs - Book Review
https://kimtasso.com/book-review-the-awareness-code-the-secrets-to-emotional-empowerment-for-incredible-leadership-by-wayne-linton-and-steve-tappin/ - Book Review (Even tough this is a blog, the original article is from February 2022 edition of Professional Marketing magazine, as stated
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/m/eduonline/2009-11/23/content_9103252.htm - Book Review, contains quotations, but about half the article is original journalist commentary

In addition WP:BASIC states that “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;” Tappin has over 40 articles online as you can also see some posted in the tal page. Also the following article is in depth:

https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/vGunLo5swZ5apoTkVPeZcK/Steve-Tappin--The-author-spills-his-secrets.html - very indepth

Finally, as per WP:ENT he would qualify because he was the host of BBC TV show CEO GURU for a long time - over two years - and has been on at least 30 episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzsoth (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources presented above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Royal Yacht Squadron members

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST. Might be WP:A3 eligible. Conyo14 (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like before it was removed, the list was mostly sourced from this unsourced (random?) list of supposed members of the squadron. cyberdog958^Talk 20:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Church Festival

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

I boldy merged this article over a year ago, but just noticed that my redirect was reverted in October. This festival fails WP:NCONCERT/WP:NCORP (which I think applies because this is a non-profit festival, i.e., an organization that puts on an event once a year). I have been unable to find sustained, in-depth coverage of the festival. As there is still merged content in Christian music festival#Worldwide, I propose restoring the redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Religion, Christianity, and United Kingdom. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be be enough coverage to warrant the page to be kept and improved on. cyberdog958^Talk 02:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not count Event Industry News toward notability; per WP:TRADES, there's a presumption against using industry trade publications to establish notability. Christian Today and Cross Rhythms are both from 2015, hence why I noted this event lacks sustained coverage. Those are the only sources with SIGCOV I could find; the rest of the coverage I've been able to find are routine announcements that particular bands are performing at the event. In sum, two reviews from 2015 isn't enough to establish notability in my view. Cross Rhythms is also an interview with the founder, which means it lacks independence. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per the Christianity Today piece and the Cross Rhythms piece which has a significant coverage prose introduction before the interview part, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional. Irrelevant. with hardly any reliable or independent references--Alon9393 (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant is a personal opinion not a notability factor and promotionalism can be edited out, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Shearman

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

Proposed deletion tag removed on the basis of "several sources" being present. This consists of two primary sources from the British government, an entry in the unreliable Who's Who, the subjects Twitter page and a brief mention of his appointments in a list of British diplomats. Fails WP:BASIC as lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Uganda, and Belgium. AusLondonder (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 of the 3 provided sources are primary. Could not find significant third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holder of the CVO, a high honour which has generally been considered notable per WP:ANYBIO. They're not handed out in cereal packets. A handful are awarded every year. Confirmation that he was appointed CVO in 2003. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANYBIO provides a "likely" indication of notability provided sufficient in-depth secondary sources are available. As made clear, with regards to WP:ANYBIO, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". ANYBIO does not exempt a subject from the sourcing test. AusLondonder (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also taking a look at your own chart, of the last five AfDs, just one had a clear "keep" result. AusLondonder (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is? As far as I'm concerned it's clear WP:COMMONSENSE that anyone considered notable enough by the British Government to receive a high honour (one to two hundred every year in a country of 67 million) should be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. They're not selected at random. They're selected because they're already notable. That's the point of ANYBIO #1, to catch people who are clearly notable but not widely covered in the media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The government honouring a government official is hardly a compelling indication of notability. If he's "already notable" then sources meeting WP:BASIC would be easily locatable. He's not a historic figure. AusLondonder (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually (my mistake in this instance), the government didn't. The Royal Victorian Order is in the gift of the sovereign, not the government. The vast majority of government officials do not receive high honours; only a small minority. So yes, it's still a good indication of notability. If he's "already notable" then sources meeting WP:BASIC would be easily locatable. I'm sure you're very well aware that that's not really the case. The media generally has little interest in diplomats. Once again, that's largely the point of ANYBIO #1. It balances out people who are notable in real if not especially sexy jobs against media obsession with pop cultural figures. If clauses like this didn't exist then Wikipedia would become ever more focused on pop culture and even less on being a proper encyclopaedia. It's heading in that direction now, sadly, and nominations like this just speed up the rot. He's not a historic figure is a meaningless statement, especially given he's still alive. What does that mean? I assume it simply means you don't think he's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean he's not a historic figure for whom it is difficult to locate sources. It is quite common for British diplomats to receive honours. I don't think it gives them all a free pass from WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, only a small minority of diplomats receive high honours (i.e. CBE and above), especially in the modern day. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to have a look at some British ambassadors to see whether this is accurate. Surprise, surprise, it wasn't. Menna Rawlings, ambassador to France, DCMG CVO. Karen Pierce, ambassador to the US, DCMG. Nigel Casey, ambassador to Russia, CMG MVO. Julia Longbottom, ambassador to Japan, CMG. Jill Gallard, ambassador to Germany, CMG CVO. Martin Harris, ambassador to Ukraine, OBE CMG. Alex Ellis, ambassador to Spain, KCMG. Notice a peculiar pattern here? A walled garden of articles, some with zero secondary sources (completely unacceptable for a BLP), of British diplomats awarded honours by their employer. AusLondonder (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Jones (British diplomat)

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD closed as no consensus, but should have closed as delete given AfD is not a simple headcount, with strength of argument supposed to account for something. Two editors favoured deleting, and two favoured keeping (including the creator, who cited the unreliable Who's Who as a keep rationale). Source analysis in previous AfD established Jones lacks significant coverage specifically about him in multiple published secondary sources and therefore fails WP:BASIC. The current article has not been improved since last AfD and instead still consists of three sources which do not contribute to notability. Ambassadors are not inherently notable and do not get a free pass from notability requirements. AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this which doesn't look too bad but I don't really know how it works for ambassadors. There may be more but I am unsure what exactly counts for this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this. Still not done searching but there isn't nothing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This and this are good as well. This is also a bit helpful but not as much. I was able to find this from just Switzerland and I didn't even try to search for the other places. Again, not very experienced with ambassadors, but I think this is GNG now, especially with the the Le Temps source which is the Romandy's newspaper of record. So keep.

@CFA Thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, looks good to me. Thanks for finding those. Keep. C F A 💬 17:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thank only Switzerland's inexplicably well digitized press. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The source above is good, but I couldn't find anything else. Ambassadors have to meet WP:NBASIC like everyone else. I wouldn't be surprised if more coverage exists ~~but I'm inclined to delete unless some is found.~~ C F A 💬 16:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the coverage found provides enough coverage Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX There are three keep votes and no deletes. Is that not enough consensus? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why, has AusLondonder turned into chopped liver while I wasn't looking? Either way, I don't see any reason to hurry. Owen× ☎ 21:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Expand and maintain, just expand your trajectory and your relevance increases. Alon9393 (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by " just expand your trajectory and your relevance increases"? It doesn't make sense is arguing for notability. LibStar (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Moldova, London

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

Article merely confirms it exists plus a list of ambassadors. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Moldova, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like many of these embassy articles created at a time with less stringent enforcement of notability requirements, this fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Merge and) Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London which contains all the encyclopaedic information about the embassy. The list of ambassadors should be merged somewhere if there is an appropriate target but I haven't immediately found one. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Brudenell, Countess of Cardigan

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

If there is any significant coverage of Lady Cardigan in reliable sources, I am not seeing it either in this article or in my Google Books search. All I see are genealogy compilations and that is indeed what the article amounts to for the most part. Surtsicna (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, United Kingdom, and England. Surtsicna (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't deny that we don't (or I don't) know much about the countess, but she was a Lady of the Bedchamber, for which we have a category. I feel we're a bit dismissive of female roles in society in past centuries, and that's one of the many reasons Wikipedia's gender balance is poor. Deb (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of agree with Deb. She had a relatively notable role in court. I wish someone with more knowledge or expertise could step forward and improve the article a little bit. Keivan.f^Talk 11:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But all three of us know that which role she held (and only for a few months, if I may add) is not what determines encyclopedic notability. The criterion (WP:GNG) is whether she has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So far I do not see evidence of significant coverage. I also think that having a biography with 95% of its content being who the subject's parents, husband, children, and brother-in-law were is not doing much at all for the state of women's biographies on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-) You don't think that having all those children was an achievement? Deb (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can cite a historian who considers it an achievement, please do. Surtsicna (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can measure a woman's level of notability by the number of children she has given birth to. But if indeed it was a notable achievement then one can cite a source and include the relevant info! Keivan.f^Talk 21:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Deb Killuminator (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killuminator, could you please explain how Deb has demonstrated that the article passes WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject")? Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The way the article itself is written does not make the subject look notable enough. As nominator explains, writing about the subject's parents, husband, children, and brother-in-law, etc., does not make her notable enough for a standalone encyclopedia article. The subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Prof.PMarini (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trying to search on newspapers.com [3] but i can't access. 58.136.119.76 (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and because she was the central character of a notable painting, England: Richmond Hill, on the Prince Regent's Birthday. Women of her time and station had a lot of influence without any formal power. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC) P.S. I added fascinating information about her family connections to the Charge of the Light Brigade and other famous descendants in British history. Bearian (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of that addresses WP:GNG concerns, i.e. the issue of her not receiving significant coverage in reliable sources. Her family connections and famous descendants mean nothing; see WP:INVALIDBIO. The only reason to have this article is if you, or someone, can prove that she has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm very conscious of the need to address the gender imbalance on Wikipedia, but it should be achieved by focusing on women scientists, doctors, engineers, activists and leaders. Not by keeping an article on someone who fails WP:NBIO that is virtually entirely describing a woman through the context of her husband, brothers, father and many children. Frankly, that's an insult to the goal of improving women's biographies on Wikipedia. This is a textbook case of WP:INVALIDBIO: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability." AusLondonder (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was the Lady of the Bedchamber during her time, a notable and high-ranking social position in the palace. This role may be equivalent to the Sang-bok rank in the inner court of Joseon. The Sang-bok rank in Korea could pass WP:NPOL as it was one of the highest positions in the Joseon inner court. The Korean monarchy had two courts: the royal court (which functioned like a parliament) and the inner court (the court of the palace). The internal court, headed by the queen, wielded both political and judicial power. However, I'm unsure if the Lady of the Bedchamber had influence similar to that of the Sang-bok. Nonetheless, Lady of the Bedchamber served as like the queen's chief secretary, which could be considered notable, and she was also a subject of royal artwork. Therefore, I believe her role is significant enough to warrant inclusion. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And which sources discuss her in detail as a proof of how exalted her position was? Surtsicna (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The woman of the bedchamber is Her Majesty's right-hand woman and plays a key role in making decisions about social engagements. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking about the position. I am asking about the woman who is the subject of this article. You claim that the position she held was "a notable and high-ranking social position". Very well. She must be thoroughly discussed in the sources then. Where are these sources that discuss Penelope Brudenell, Countess of Cardigan, in great detail? Surtsicna (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per above. She would almost certainly have more sources if historical sources wrote more about women, but the position is notable. Relinus (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there is currently no consensus. Since there is disagreement over sourcing, can we get a source assessment? And, although half of the editors here are arguing for a Keep would editors consider a Merge or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

England

Boyracer

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

Appears to fail music notability criteria Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AllMusic has a biography and a lot of reviews of their records, Pitchfork Media has three reviews, PopMatters has a review, Trouser Press has an entry for the band, and so on. toweli (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+ a review from Exclaim! toweli (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Great job finding sources! I think we should chuck the list of singles and EPs and rename the section "Select discography". Geschichte (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Author) Keep as I don't start articles on musicians who do not meet WP:MUSIC. We do not have selection criteria for discographies and a complete list is encyclopedic, so I disagree with the "Select Discography" proposal and suggest instead a reformatting. Chubbles (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at Liverpool Arena

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at Liverpool Arena (2nd nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. mikeblas (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at the O2 Arena

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the O2 Arena (2nd nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Weakly stated inclusion criteria does not match title. mikeblas (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrien Thibaut

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

PROD removed by article creator, no reason given. Ni significant coverage, everything is pretty much match reports and stats sites, fails WP:GNG. No spectacular career that would justify keeping. Giant Snowman 17:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT pretty much match reports and stats though. There is references that back up what I put within the article, Crewe Alexandra's website is on there numerous times as are other references which support my research into Adrien Thibaut's career from what I found online. EnglishDude98 (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles from his own club does not go towards SIGCOV. Giant Snowman 18:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the other references and read the articles please, you'll see that it is NOT pretty much match reports and stats sites as per your above comment. EnglishDude98 (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources show significant coverage? Giant Snowman 20:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Decent start for the article, but certainly needs to play more professional football and to be talked about by secondary sources. Govvy (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Per Govvy. Svartner (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Govvy- page is better off moving into the draft space for now. 2A06:5902:180C:5800:50F1:C4DF:B59:9E61 (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall College Students' Union

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

Entirely non-notable student organisation for small regional college. No references, no attempt to improve despite being tagged for over ten years. Suggest deletion with merger into The Cornwall College Group of anything still considered of value. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not meeting WP:GNG. I found a couple student newspapers, but probably don't even get to reliability standards. Conyo14 (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Willoughby

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

I could not found any book talking about her alone. His father is notable but looks like a violation of WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and England. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Rugby

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

Recreated and deleted countless times, was recreated by a indefinitely blocked editor with the edit summary "the day wikipedia admins decide not to be DUMB, this will be allowed as an article." Still lacking secondary sources. No indication of in-depth secondary source coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union, Websites, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Morgan

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

WP:BLP with no secondary sourcing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions. Book is notable and notability is not inherited. scope_creep^Talk 21:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Archaeology. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, not yet notable under WP:NAUTHOR (only one book) or WP:NPROF (too early career, doesn't meet any of the criteria). -- asilvering (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Asilvering: I don't think WP:NAUTHOR says anything about more than one book being required? – Joe (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  When an author only has one book, and all the coverage is about the book and not biographical coverage of the author, it's the book that's notable, not the author. If you want to argue that she's a notable author for having written the "significant or well-known work", Sins of the Shovel... well, I can't stop you, but I don't think that's a good argument. -- asilvering (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It's not exactly my argument. It's an explicit SNG (WP:NAUTHOR, emphasis added: [...] a significant or well-known work or collective body of work). Whether you frame it an article on the author or an article on the book, the content is the same, making it rather inconsequential which one is the 'notable' entity. – Joe (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, England, United States of America, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the book, which is at Sins of the Shovel. -- asilvering (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a stub on the notable book, as alternative to deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Russ Woodroofe: There is no article on the book. Are you proposing that we move this article to being about it? – Joe (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, essentially. Per WP:BLP1E, it would be better in this circumstance to cover the notable material in an article on the book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I don't object to his outcome; I think the content would be basically the same. My preference is still for keeping this title, though, since it doesn't really matter either way and a) that it is what the original author of this article chose and b) it's quite likely the subject will write more books. – Joe (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe, there is one, not sure how I missed it the first time either: Sins of the Shovel. -- asilvering (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, thanks. It was created from the content of this article, which the creator of the article on the book then blanked and redirected there. Which was... unorthodox. – Joe (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the book is notable (amply demonstrated by the sources cited in the article), then so is the author per WP:NAUTHOR#3. Whether we cover them separately, together under the author's name, or together under the book's title is inconsequential. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not consensus. The author must be standalone notable as well. I've never seen that statement at Afd in more than 1 years. They are many many famous books where the author is virtually unknown, even in the modern period. They don't like the limelight, don't give interviews or readings or go to conferences or conventions. They are unknown and by any defintion they would fail WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAUTHOR has wide consensus and has been stable for years. It reads:

This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if [... t]he person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series).

The subject of this article has written a significant work, Sins of the Shovel: Looting, Murder, and the Evolution of American Archaeology, which has been the subject of at least six independent reviews in periodicals (cited in the article). Hence, they meet WP:NAUTHOR.

I alluded to the logic behind this above: if we can write an article on a book, we can write an article on its author – even if the content is just John Smith is the author of Notable Book, a [remainder based on significant coverage of the book]. Whether to call this article "John Smith" or "Notable Book" barely affects the content and is a question of article titling and framing rather than notability or deletion. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know what it reads and what it means. I've done 100's of book and author Afd's, over the years. I'm acutely aware of the policy. They are one of the most common article types that gets sent to Afd. The author must be notable on their own to have the article. Notability is not inherited. That is long-establised consensus. I could point to 1000's Afd's where the statement has been made, following established policy. The book is certainly notable, but the author isn't yet. You just have to look at how the industry is structured. If you followed They must be standalone notable. List of books review. By your logic every self-published author would have have an article on here. scope_creep^Talk 11:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep, I think you're right about the outcome of AfDs, but I don't think that's an accurate conclusion about Joe's logic. Those self-published authors rarely get book reviews in reliable sources that would count for notability. Frankly, I think Joe's logic is perfectly correct (what does it matter if the article on a book is at the author's name or the book's title?), but it would be a really eccentric outcome for an AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be strange outcome. I don't know what has changed in the 6 months-odd interim where I wasn't doing Afd. scope_creep^Talk 12:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite a common outcome for academics, at least. A common objection to WP:NPROF is that it lets us have articles on people for whom there could be little or no biographical sources available. Which is true, but following the logic above it just means that the notable entity is John Smith's work not John Smith. But actually calling the article that would be dumb, so we don't do it. – Joe (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that this long-established consensus followed in hundred of AfDs isn't written down anywhere, then, and that the notability guideline for authors explicitly contradicts it. – Joe (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a handful of AfDs (or even one, honestly) for authors that have been kept on the grounds that an author has a single book with multiple reviews, I'd be very interested to see them. -- asilvering (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine Spandagos

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

Fails WP:NPROF. scope_creep^Talk 18:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, Environment, Greece, England, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete early-career academic with citation counts not yet at the level needed for WP:PROF#C1. The article cites some mainstream media coverage of research he participated in (in the South China Morning Post and Irish Times) but his part in that work was apparently minor enough that he is not even name-dropped in those articles or in anything at all in Google News. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not remotely attained. Why on earth was this premature BLP created? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Bishop Wilkins College

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

The subject doesn't appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia. toweli (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Christianity, United Kingdom, England, and Wales. toweli (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 14:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only the lack of WP:SIGCOV and the fact that there is not a single source cited in the article, I found little to prove widespread, independent secondary coverage. GuardianH (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton House Preparatory School

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

Promotional article that does not appear to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: While I'm not finding any immediate sources (only did a Google search), this school is definitely around 50 years old (UK incorporation documentation). Given that this article was nominated for deletion the same day it was created, I favor draftification and looking into possible references. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Listings like this one from The Sunday Times are notable enough to count towards the RS coverage total of the GNG. Will keep looking, as I'm about 50/50 on whether this could work as an article. Might scrounge around some architecture books and see if anyone finds that element particularly notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I can't read that source in its entirety as it is paywalled but "School league tables: the best UK primary and secondary schools revealed" as a title does not give me confidence that this is actually significant coverage of the school itself. Rankings usually aren't. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It isn't SIGCOV, but multiple listings in notable rankings is another avenue towards notability described by NORG. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Where does NORG say that? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Footnote 2, WP:ORGTRIV. Presumptive notability is a rare thing, but this might clear that through inclusion on such listings. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That footnote says If the list itself is notable, such as the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide, the inclusion counts like any other reliable source, but it does not exempt the article from the normal value of providing evidence that independent sources discuss the subject. I don't think that is met here. Unless you can prove that this newspaper's ranking of primary schools is notable in itself? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  We're going a bit off-topic (which is fine for me; I'm not super concerned about this article but now I kinda on a kick seeing how UK schools are ranked). Looking into it, The Times's school rankings may themselves clear GNG. See [4], [5], [6]. Their rankings seem to be a standard. Again, off topic, but maybe something for me to consider looking into as a potential article sometime in the future. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The reason I created the article was due to the Schools inclusion in a number of articles by UK News Outlets about the continued success of the school, with it earning the title and reputation in the Liverpool region for "the best institution for primary education in Merseyside" https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/best-primary-schools-merseyside-ranked-22404373 this coupled with it being featured nationally in the times schools of the year rankings. The decision to create it an article also stems from the history the schools establishment is the continuation of Woolton Hall Preparatory School, part of the history of Woolton Hall. I would also like to state that it has only been a matter of hours since the articles creation, and I believe it would be more prudent to expand the third party sourcing of this school's article rather then deleting it. I would also like to advise that it does not fall under a for-profit school due to its establishment as a registered charity for providing a school upholding the catholic faith, UK Gov Charity registration number will be added to the article to greater clarify this. Knowledgework69 (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is if you can provide three reliable and independent sources that have WP:SIGCOV about the school. Wikipedia has certain guidelines for inclusion, so school rankings by themselves aren't really what I'm looking for. An AfD lasts at least 7 days so there is no need to rush. But I did not find the sourcing I was hoping to find when I looked. Drafts cannot overcome notability concerns and aren't supposed to be a backdoor to deletion, so I figured it'd be worth raising the matter now. I'm not unreasonable as long as you can provide that sourcing, I'd withdraw. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, totally understand I am trying to look through articles now bare with. Knowledgework69 (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

more sources pertaining to history and charity and constitution added Knowledgework69 (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a further point to the schools notability https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/junior-sport/carleton-house-reach-finals-3509155 for sporting success it has competed successfully at the highest level of Junior School sports in England, which was reported on in news articles Knowledgework69 (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I need to prove the school's notability. I need significant coverage. Can you find sources that meet what's described there? I haven't been able to yet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The School was featured in two books published in 2022 and 2023 respectively information pertaining to them can now be found on the article under the School section. Knowledgework69 (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A children's book featuring the school's mascot is not SIGCOV about the school itself. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you can overcome the notability hurdle, there's still the promotional issue. The entire lede consists of promotional items not discussed elsewhere in the article. A lede for a school article should include the town and political division where the school is located; the name of the lowest level administrative authority that controls it, and a brief summary of the high points of the rest of the article. Also, you should arrange the sections of the article as outlined at WP:WPSCH/AG. Further, there is a bunch of flowery language scattered throughout the article. A good rule of thumb is, you cannot say anything either good or bad about the school in Wikipedia's voice. You need to directly quote a reliable secondary source that is completely independent of the school. I'd lean towards draftifying the article to give the author time to work on all the issues. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I found four reliable sources in this article with significant coverage:

There are three additional sources on two books about the school's mascot and school motto, ‘They Can Because They Think They Can’:

However, the text in the History section needs to be re-worked, preferably using chronological order and a simplified narrative. It would be useful to differentiate between the history of the buildings the school has occupied from the various iterations of the school's title and organization. Primary schools seldom meet the referencing requirements of WP:GNG, but this one now does, thanks to WP:HEY effort of Knowledgework69. It's kind of like a diamond in the rough... it just needs some polishing now. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, and I agree with your suggestion to differentiate between the history of Beechenhurst House and Woolton Hall, and of the School Knowledgework69 (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bolgar

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

Poorly sourced stub, fails GNG. Wire723 (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wire723 (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete need more significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 13:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created this article, though I am pretty certain I was not logged in at the time, and I completely agree that it should be deleted. Wikipedia's rules on notability have obviously tightened up a *lot* in the last two decades, and the site does not need anorak trivia with no notability beyond that small and self-perpetuating niche - it fills me with embarrassment, the stuff I thought was acceptable here two decades ago. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Edmondson

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Could not find any third party sources. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is not enough need more sources. Xegma(talk) 13:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If it is really necessary, an article exists at List of Oxfordshire County Cricket Club List A players for an obvious redirect. But 90 percent of non-first class List A players will make their way to those articles eventually, so... *shrug* I'd be surprised if nothing exists in sources given that he appears to have died abroad and relatively young. Bobo . 16:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He does seem to have had a prominent role with the education authority in Calderdale in Yorkshire. He drowned in the bath on the second day of his stay at his holiday home in Lanzarote, having taken sleeping tablets given to him by his wife. AA (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @LibStar:. These AfD's are a little pointless. Just be WP:BOLD and redirect to the above mentioned list, retaining Category:English cricketers and Category:Oxfordshire cricketers. AA (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brook Driver

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Awards won are not major. IMDb would indicate WP:TOOSOON. Main claim to notability seems tied up with Swede Caroline, released only this year. Only remotely significant coverage about the person from the cited sources is the second one – a blog interview. An online search shows many sites that mention the subject's name, but they say nothing more about him. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 18:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 18:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm an intern working for the studio itself (specifically Brook Driver). I apologize about the source misinformation. I'm doing my best to improve it, but I'm still incredibly new to this internship and even Wikipedia editing itself. I request more time for it to get fixed up. We're all very busy, so it will take some time, but it will be improved. If anything, some tips on how to improve it would be fantastic. Thanks! MNLewis21 (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MNLewis21: to avoid deletion, the article needs to show evidence of significant coverage of Driver himself – not Deadbeat Films or other affiliated topics – in reliable, independent sources. None of the sources currently cited in the article meets that requirement, as they are either non-independent (e.g. deadbeatfilms.co.uk), blogs (e.g. blog.finaldraft.com; see WP:BLOGS), or trivial mentions of Driver (e.g. deadline.com). Unfortunately, articles that are started through conflict-of-interest editing, as this one apparently was, are very unlikely to meet Wikipedia's topic notability and sourcing requirements, so usually end up being deleted. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do very much appreciate your help and clarifications. If anything, I'll be backing these up and, if possible, we can start fresh. MNLewis21 (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MNLewis21 , it definitely doesn't work that way here as you thought. Gabriel (……?) 17:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard McDonald (academic)

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. He worked for some important organizations in non-major roles. I see no sign of any influential scientific publication of his on a reputable journal, or any terminal degree for that matter. This looks more like a resume of a postgraduate student than anything else. Badbluebus (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Religion, and United Kingdom. Badbluebus (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody can find evidence of cites or reviews. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
His publication is released in December, and so these are forthcoming JapaneseWoodblocks (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, creation of page was due to unusual and niche academic field of minority religions in prison, which is the topic of his first publication due for release in 2024. His terminal degree was completed at Birkbeck Dept. Of Psychosocial Studies but I can’t find a citation for this so I didn’t include. On the ‘non major roles point’ - understood, but he held the role ‘Head of Policy’ for HMPPS in 2023 which feels notable? Apols if I’ve made it sound like an advert JapaneseWoodblocks (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for making this page. If I can make the case a bit more: is a nascent academic but in a niche and unusual field of writing about Norse paganism in prison which distinguishes his contribution and his first publication is a book chapter with Bloomsbury coming out in December.

He sits on various policy and governance boards for national organisations including charities (Traveller movement) and the Magistrate’s association. I know he sits on several more including the Uni of Sheffield but can’t cite this.

I don’t want it to read like an advert, just an encyclopaedia entry for a niche academic who works at the intersections of religion and penology. JapaneseWoodblocks (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find anything to contribute to notability. ResonantDis_tortion 23:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. No sign whatsoever of NPROF notability. NAUTHOR would generally require multiple works with multiple reviews (a single work reviewed work would be better handled with an article about that work). A single work is unlikely to cut it, even if reviews could be found. Little sign of GNG notability (see WP:INTERVIEWS concerning the interview with the Magistrates Association), although the relatively common name may make searching tricky. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksons Fencing

AfDs for this article:

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

Stub about a small business. Single source, to itself. Nothing to indicate Notability. May have a COI advertising element. KJP1 (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NB. Appears to have previously been deleted in 2009 and re-introduced in 2016. The creating editor’s editing is almost completely devoted to inserting mentions of the company into articles, usually sourced to the company itself. KJP1 (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources. Xegma(talk) 17:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anemic WP:PROMO violation. Nate • (chatter) 00:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a firm lacking in independent references. Searches find a listing source confirming that their security fences meet/exceed a standard spec. for palisade fences, but that is insufficient to demonstrate notability here for the firm. AllyD (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deadbeat Films

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

Not a notable film studio, as its IMDb entry clearly shows. Tellingly, none of the cited sources even mention the studio. Additionally, notability is not inherited from films that the studio happened to be involved in. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and United Kingdom. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Per nominator's reason. Came across the page and had to make my own find out. The notable movies never claimed in any reliable source that Deadbeat Films was their movie studio production. Maybe reason why it was not even listed on the IMDB platform. So many unreliable source which also fails WP:GNG of the subject article.--Gabriel (……?) 22:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm an intern working for the studio itself. As per my other comment, I apologize about the source misinformation. I'm doing my best to improve it, but I'm still incredibly new to this internship and even Wikipedia editing itself. I request more time for it to get fixed up. We're all very busy, so it will take some time, but it will be improved. If anything, some tips on how to improve it would be fantastic. Thanks! MNLewis21 (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm an intern working for the studio itself. It's just smaller than what we're used to and it's in England. I'm not entirely sure where you live, but I definitely think it's more Indie British than anything Well Known American. I've just been hired on, and I believe part of my job is to freshen up and work on the various Wikipedia pages for the studio, its films, and its employees. Another intern started what I'm working on right now. It's a bunch of busy people on board and just needs its due time to cook in the oven. Thanks! MNLewis21 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Can you further explain more about your internal team and their works towards Wikipedia they intend to get started on. You mentioned some of your colleagues has started what you were currently working on. Can you as well list those draft. That will help. Also is the current article creator of the “Deadbeat Films” part of your internal team. Things needs to be clearer. Gabriel (……?) 19:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'm not entirely sure, unfortunately. I believe the one who initially wrote and researched the articles relating to the studio and its employees has left the company since they were also an intern, but I can't quite confirm that. I've been keeping in touch with my employer Brook Driver, a creative director and screenwriter for the studio, about the articles' status and the advice I'm receiving (thank you very much, by the way). They're still trying to kickstart getting their online presence more well known and complete. As for drafts within the studio itself I don't have access to that just yet. MNLewis21 (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one that created the initial Wikipedia article for Deadbeat Films. I was an intern under Brook Driver at the time and designed this page. The creation of the page was done for no compensation and was based upon research of my own in an attempt to avoid biases and to follow the terms and rules of Wikipedia. I do acknowledge though that this was the first page I had ever created, so any issues present are all my own. I am willing to assist in any way I can in fixing the page if possible. I do believe that the company does meet the standards of having a Wikipedia page, especially when looking at pages for other previously released independent films. This article from TheGuardian directly talks about their recent film Swede Caroline and namedrops Brook Driver specifically: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/apr/17/swede-caroline-review-marrow-mockumentary-is-gourd-for-a-laugh This article from Little Black Book specifically discusses the merging of Deadbeat Films with Toma Productions (Direct connection to The Devil's Harmony): https://lbbonline.com/news/deadbeat-films-appoints-anthony-toma-as-head-of-production CFORMAN12 (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The official Swede Caroline poster also does feature the Deadbeat Films logo on it: https://www.swedecaroline.com/synopsis/ CFORMAN12 (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources fail to demonstrate the notability of the studio. The Guardian source is a film review, not a company profile, and doesn't mention "Deadbeat Films" anywhere. As I stated in the AfD nomination, the studio doesn't gain notability from its people or products. Unless I'm mistaken, the LLB source looks like a press release. And the film website is, similarly, not an independent source. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 17:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the note of communication with Brook himself: I'm in America and he is in England, so the time zones have a large gap in between them. We are doing our best to communicate in a timely manner despite this hurdle. MNLewis21 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Ellis (police commissioner)

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

Local elected officials are not notable through WP:NPOL, the one source listed is a run of the mill election report, which does not contribute to the subject passing WP:GNG. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Police, Politics, and England. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OFFICEHOLDER. The article is short and needs updating but is about a holder of a notable office who held the post for two terms. This discussion has been had on previous occasions, but do note that the office of police commissioners in the UK is different to that of a police commissioner in the United States. This is Paul (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PCCs (including this one) have received significant press coverage, albeit often on a local level. A police constituency can cover a population of several hundred thousand, or even into the millions. Indeed, the population of the Staffordshire area is around 1.146 million. Compare that to a Member of Parliament, whose constituency contains roughly 76,000 people, and a London Assembly member, whose constituency covers less than a million. Consequently it is a notable post, and the holder of it is likely to attract ongoing media attention, thus making them notable. As I have said previously, the consensus at the time these offices were created was that they were notable in the same way we create articles for every MP, MSP, Member of the Senedd and so on. I've also suggested that perhaps what is needed is a wider debate on how we deal with articles about people who hold these posts. This is Paul (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in NPOL that covers police and crime commissioners. AusLondonder (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's something we should address though because these articles get nominated for AfD from time to time, and there's no clear guidelines for them. While they're not at the level of MPs they're also not at the level of local councillors. This is Paul (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:OFFICEHOLDER. A police commissioner at this level is unlikely to attract coverage beyond routine spokesbeing reporting, and there's no claim of that in the article. Possibly he could be redirected to the list of officeholders if must but personally I'm not inclined to take AtD as a requirement. Mangoe (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Tappin

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

The subject appears to be a non-notable individual, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. Most of the sources cited in the article and on the talk page are passing mentions, interviews, primary, routine coverage, or hearsay, none of which provide in-depth coverage. The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, off-wiki evidence suggests potential undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry. GSS ^💬 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. GSS ^💬 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the talkpage of this article there are lot of significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 03:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xegma Do you really research on topics or just go on voting 'delete' at AfDs? Did you check the talk page of this article? There are significant coverage in China Daily and The Telegraph and all are present in the talk page. Even nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. Unless it is a UPE issue, there is no reason to delete. It is a Keep. Hitro talk 21:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles you are referring to seem to be paid promotional pieces, structured as interviews, which often include sections like "bio" and "CV" at the end of the article—something rarely found in genuine editorial news. It's a common feature of sponsored content. Additionally, the Telegraph article lacks an author byline, which raises questions about whether it was even produced by their editorial team. GSS ^💬 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The China Daily article, the one I am referring to, was written by Andrew Moody. I hope you are not implying that Andrew Moody, a renowned journalist and recipient of the Friendship Medal (China) from the Chinese government, was just an editor of paid promotional pieces.

The Telegraph article, which is almost 16 years old, appears to be written by Dominic White and must have been published on the old format of the website of The Telegraph which was significantly different from current one. Please check the other articles of same years, you won't find author bylines.

Apart from those, I also see WP:SIGCOV in this, a South China Morning Post article.

I see that this BLP article was created on Wikipedia in 2008 and being nominated for deletion now due to some recent UPE activities. IMO, it's more appropriate to restore the best version of the article rather than delete it entirely. If you have a case that this has been a UPE product from the start then I'll rest my case. Hitro talk 15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HitroMilanese, I respect your expertise, but I must point out that all the articles you've mentioned are essentially interviews, which do not meet the standards of independent sources required by WP:GNG. For instance, the China Daily article explicitly states in the second paragraph, "Steve Tappin says," while the Telegraph article includes phrases like "But Tappin, whom I meet" and "Talking to him, it almost seems..." Similarly, the South China Morning Post piece follows the same pattern. These sources rely heavily on hearsay and fail to meet the criteria for WP:IS.

Regarding the absence of a byline in The Telegraph, I managed to find many articles, both older and from the same time period (even 2008), with proper author attribution, such as this. It's unfair to say the byline is missing simply because it could have been published in an older format of the website, where bylines were not prominently displayed.

Additionally, the article was created by a single-purpose account (SPA) with no contributions outside this topic. Given the subject's history of hiring freelancers to update his article, it is highly likely that the SPA either has a conflict of interest or was hired to create this article. GSS ^💬 06:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I am posting on behalf of Steve Tappin, so I assume my vote would not count, but I just wanted to bring to your attention that Mr. Tappin meets the criteria for WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. As WP:AUTHOR, if there are multiple reviews of his work he would qualify. Below are some links to his book reviews
https://www.managementtoday.co.uk/books-special-steve-tappin-tells-us-secret/article/845739 - book review
https://timesnewsgroup.com.au/geelongtimes/living/renowned-authors-to-share-secrets-on-personal-development/ - Book review
https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-85788-513-2 - The Secrets of CEOs - Book Review
https://kimtasso.com/book-review-the-awareness-code-the-secrets-to-emotional-empowerment-for-incredible-leadership-by-wayne-linton-and-steve-tappin/ - Book Review (Even tough this is a blog, the original article is from February 2022 edition of Professional Marketing magazine, as stated
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/m/eduonline/2009-11/23/content_9103252.htm - Book Review, contains quotations, but about half the article is original journalist commentary

In addition WP:BASIC states that “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;” Tappin has over 40 articles online as you can also see some posted in the tal page. Also the following article is in depth:

https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/vGunLo5swZ5apoTkVPeZcK/Steve-Tappin--The-author-spills-his-secrets.html - very indepth

Finally, as per WP:ENT he would qualify because he was the host of BBC TV show CEO GURU for a long time - over two years - and has been on at least 30 episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzsoth (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources presented above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie (dog)

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

Not inherently notable, happy to merge with Steve Darling. Bringing to AFD as I'm not sure if I'm missing something that makes this notable enough for it's own article. Lordseriouspig 07:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources aren't discussing Jennie independently from Steve Darling. There's not much to merge either, since the main points are already covered in that article. hinnk (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Not independently notable from Steve Darling. Reywas92^Talk 14:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as article creator- I'm not strongly opposed to a merge but I created a separate article because the level of sustained media coverage over time is indicative of independent notability, e.g. this Sky News segment from two days ago in which she was the primary focus- most media focus is very much primarily focused on Jennie, rather than primarily focused on Steve Darling and discussing her only as an aside. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge This doesn't feel like the subject of a separate page, and it's unlikely to be expandable either without resorting to puffery. --gilgongo (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"She is not the first guide dog to serve in Westminster, as House of Lords members Baron Blunkett and Baron Holmes of Richmond also use guide dogs in the chamber.[4]"

where is the wiki page for themTravelrisk (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed with the above that there is nothing to show that she has any notability of her own, independent of her owner, and as all of the main points are covered already in Steve Darling's article, there is no need for a merge. I have no objections to having it Redirect to Steve Darling as well, if others think that would be useful. Rorshacma (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Without more support for Keep, the options here are Deletion or Merger. Let's give this discussion a few more days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Curl

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jeremy curl

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Photography, Japan, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes mostly the sections are unsourced. Xegma(talk) 03:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have added sources and more about his recent film on AppleTV 31.217.244.67 (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Healthera

AfDs for this article:

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

it does not provide sufficient independent, reliable sources that prove the company's notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Loewstisch (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Websites, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Folley

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

Fails WP:ARTIST and probably WP:GNG as well. The sources that I was able to verify are either insignificant coverage or not independent of the subject. I searched for other sources, but only found the artist's blog, a YouTube video, some mentions on gallery sites, and the usual social media sites. I was not able to located the article "Old Master", so I don't know how much coverage it includes. I also wasn't able to find "David Folley: Portrait of a Painter", but considering that it was published by Zap Art Promotions, I'm guessing it isn't independent and was probably created to accompany an exhibit. Overall, the subject seems to be a successful professional artist with the usual smattering of coverage in local media that you would expect. They don't, however, seem to be notable enough for an encyclopedia article, but I would be happy to hear other opinions. The article about their painting The Descent from the Cross (David Folley) also seems to have questionable notability, but I'll leave that discussion for another day. Nosferattus (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Nosferattus (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, someone went to prison for a rather nasty attack on a foreigner in Wales that has the same name as this fellow... That's about all I find for sourcing. No listing in the Getty ULAN [7] either. Sourcing now in the article is purely local in nature, not helping show the notability needed. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick search on ProQuest identifies non-trivial independent newspaper articles, including the "Old Master" coverage referenced above : [8], as well as: [9], [10], [11]. Also Art UK has a profile page: [12]. There is potential for meeting WP:NARTIST here. I've added these new citations to the article. ResonantDis_tortion 23:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the added sources, there is also a book about the artist, and enough on the page to meet GNG and WP:NARTIST. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ARTIST. ]]. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Prominent/beloved local artist. See source analysis--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.proquest.com/docview/426571633?sourcetype=Newspapers			465 word article on an exhibition. Does not support the claims it is attached to )DoB, graduation in 2005 from Exeter, current studies.Exeter University etc local "The Plymouth Evening Herald Plymouth (UK)	✘ No
Telford, William (3 September 1997). "Here's one for you Mr Russell, Artist Depcits Latest Painting to Liverpool Playwright". Evening Herald.	?	?	? print	? Unknown
https://plymouthauctions.co.uk/		?	no mention of David Folley. Home page for auction house	✘ No
http://www.red-squirrel-gallery.com/artistsprofile.aspx?contactid=264437			subject's own write up	✘ No
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1448865598?sourcetype=Newspapers			~ local "The Plymouth Evening Herald Plymouth (UK)	~ Partial
https://www.proquest.com/docview/426608904?sourcetype=Newspapers			~ another article in the local "The Plymouth Evening Herald Plymouth (UK).	~ Partial
https://www.proquest.com/docview/335007852?sourcetype=Newspapers			~ local "The Plymouth Evening Herald Plymouth (UK). "Morris dancers are immortalised on canvas at last'	~ Partial
https://www.proquest.com/docview/895303940?sourcetype=Newspapers			~ local coverage The Western Morning News ; Plymouth (UK). "Artist plans Penlee tribute to human spirit"	~ Partial
https://www.proquest.com/docview/896397173?sourcetype=Newspapers			~ local paper write up "Bravery of lifeboat crew inspires artist's new work: Painter commemorates 30th anniversary of Penlee disaster with tribute to human spirit" The West Briton ; Truro (UK)	~ Partial
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/?WCI=SiteHome&ID=7826&PageID=67992			fails verification. no mention of David Folley	✘ No
Evening Herald			? print publication Telford, William (16 October 1997). "Artist's beef at burgers, Painting protest at McDonalds". Evening Herald. p. 15.	? Unknown
The Herald			? JoJo (30 May 2008). "Preparing Robert's play an art in itself". The Herald. p. 7.	? Unknown
https://plymouthmorrismen.weebly.com/links.html			link farm for Morris Men dancers	✘ No
Evening Herald			unknown - print publication	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

List of Royal Yacht Squadron members

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST. Might be WP:A3 eligible. Conyo14 (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like before it was removed, the list was mostly sourced from this unsourced (random?) list of supposed members of the squadron. cyberdog958^Talk 20:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Church Festival

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

I boldy merged this article over a year ago, but just noticed that my redirect was reverted in October. This festival fails WP:NCONCERT/WP:NCORP (which I think applies because this is a non-profit festival, i.e., an organization that puts on an event once a year). I have been unable to find sustained, in-depth coverage of the festival. As there is still merged content in Christian music festival#Worldwide, I propose restoring the redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Religion, Christianity, and United Kingdom. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be be enough coverage to warrant the page to be kept and improved on. cyberdog958^Talk 02:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not count Event Industry News toward notability; per WP:TRADES, there's a presumption against using industry trade publications to establish notability. Christian Today and Cross Rhythms are both from 2015, hence why I noted this event lacks sustained coverage. Those are the only sources with SIGCOV I could find; the rest of the coverage I've been able to find are routine announcements that particular bands are performing at the event. In sum, two reviews from 2015 isn't enough to establish notability in my view. Cross Rhythms is also an interview with the founder, which means it lacks independence. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per the Christianity Today piece and the Cross Rhythms piece which has a significant coverage prose introduction before the interview part, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional. Irrelevant. with hardly any reliable or independent references--Alon9393 (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant is a personal opinion not a notability factor and promotionalism can be edited out, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siren Song (Dove)

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

This fails WP:GNG as it entirely relies on 2 sources which is a primary source and I cannot find any RS sites talking about the opera Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and England. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jonathan Dove#Works -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Strum

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think the sources here meet WP:NBASIC or WP:NM, save for a writing credit on Why Not Us, which is rather weak on its own. Consult the table of relevant sources in the article. Nothing in my WP:before search was of higher quality.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Templeton, Tom (31 July 2005). "Introducing...Alexis Strum". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 September 2023.			little content outside of fluff and quotes	✘ No
Scott, Danni (5 October 2023). "'A mix-up over ice cream on Lorraine cost me my music career 20 years ago – but now I'm back'". The Metro. Retrieved 5 October 2023.	~	WP:METRO		✘ No
Strum, Alexis (23 July 2023). "I'm finally the pop star I dreamed of becoming – and I'm in my forties". The Independent. Retrieved 2 September 2023.	written by Strum	~		✘ No
Krieger, Candice (3 March 2011). "Alexis Strum lands a starring role at your fingertips". The Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved 2 September 2023.			Short article from when watching TV on phones was novel, with a few sentences of background on Strum at the end.	✘ No
Glanvill, Natalie (17 June 2015). "Kylie Minogue Songwriter to stage Homeland meets Loose Women play". Guardian Series. Retrieved 2 September 2023.	Mostly quotes or other stuff obviously sourced to Strum	?	~	✘ No
"Comic documentary about failure in development". British Comedy Guide. 15 October 2018. Retrieved 2 September 2023.	mostly quotes from Strum	~		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Mach61 04:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Theatre, and England. Mach61 04:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did a teeny bit more searching, noting small amount of coverage here. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the nomination for deletion.

Strum has co-written two songs on popular 00s albums - Come and Get it by Rachel Stevens and Still Standing by Kylie Minogue in addition to the single, Why Not Us? by Monrose.

Under Notability (music), Strum therefore qualifies under the criteria: 'Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.'

In addition, Strum is eligible for inclusion under the criteria as a performer: 'Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.' 'Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).' ('Addicted' was released by Warner Bros. major label release - https://open.spotify.com/artist/49DJil4JyZdW8Upoilkfom?si=uoQw-rvcTSOKuvGOyykJkw - her second album 'Cocoon' was also a major label recording, which was shelved and has now been released and distributed on an 'independent label with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable - https://open.spotify.com/album/7vNUTEQtnCVWel68cxx5sC?si=fMuK_Zl5Q1mgtyt1TSqOAQ and https://hmv.com/store/music/cd/cocoon)

Her listing is incomplete, but she is featured on the UK Official Charts Company website: https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/alexis-strum/

In addition, she has released two albums as a recording artist, which are widely available on all streaming platforms, with 8.3k monthly streams on Spotify.

She is also eligible for inclusion under: 'Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).'

Go My Own Way was the theme tune to the 'network television show' Vital Signs (TV Show) in the UK, which aired on ITV, starring Tamzin Outhwaite.

She is also eligible for inclusion under: 'Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.'

The music video for Bad Haircut featured Tom Ellis and was aired on The Box and MTV Hits, and has over 100,000 views on YoUTube.

She is also eligible for inclusion under: 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.'

The album 'Cocoon' has received a large amount of press attention since its initial planned release in 2006: - https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/music/alexis-strum---cocoon-mercury-1024671 - https://retropopmagazine.com/alexis-strum-cocoon-album-review/

Strum's music career has also been the feature of multiple, non-trivial, published works, as well as being mentioned in articles where she has been listed as a musical performer, worthy of note: - https://metro.co.uk/2023/10/04/lorraine-mix-up-destroyed-alexis-strums-career-for-20-years-19596176/ - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl7ld1glk3o - https://www.aol.com/clean-bandit-were-told-stop-233558500.html?guccounter=1 - https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/pop-star-music-alexis-strum-album-b2380472.html - https://player.winamp.com/podcasts/womans-hour-podcast-e59d55dc59 - https://www.theguardian.com/music/2005/aug/23/popandrock - https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/festival-finalises-acts-for-v-line-up-12712 - https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/13337233.kylie-minogue-songwriter-stage-homeland-meets-loose-women-play/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevebritney (talk • contribs) 13:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as the above mentioned sources such as The Guardian and the Metro (not convinced it is completely unreliable as the discussion was not clear-cut at RSN) there is also a staff written bio at AllMusic here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just gone through the RSN discussion links for the Metro and Im not finding any substantial discussion directly about it so unless Im missing a discussion it seems to have been quite a leap to list it as unreliable without a proper discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amel Rachedi

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

Not finding sufficient WP:SIGCOV of this individual who "presents" a show on her own Instagram channel to meet WP:GNG. She doesn't appear to meet any SNG either. There's just this story in WalesOnline; the rest is tabloid coverage excluded as SIGCOV under WP:SBST, or it's in unreliable sources like Forbes contributors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Entertainment. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Some coverage in a newspaper from Jamaica [13]. With the Wales newspaper, just barely enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Radio, Television, Internet, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no firm consensus. Also, participants, avoid "per X" comments which are practically valueless.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep coverage available, see first comment --ProudWatermelon (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, ProudWatermelon, are you ignoring my advice or making a joke? Sigh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what ? ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess rewriting the same argument as more value, sure ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the "Sigh" was just unnecessarily rude and provocative ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think "sigh" was rude and provocative? Compared to names I've been calles on this platform, it seems polite to me. It is just expressing exasperation, it's not about you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. A discussion of specific sources and whether or not they help establish notability would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. The Jamaica Gleaner piece reads as promotional rather than as journalism. Sandstein 06:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Gardner (migration expert)

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

All edits are by this obvious agency - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/Starklinson

This amounts to a self-written autobiography of an opinion columnist. It does not warrant a wikipedia article and the current one is promotional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete - as above, clearly promotional content relating to a non-notable person. Furthermore, use of “expert” in disambiguation in article title clearly biased and inappropriate. Elshad (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - need to be vigilant for paid / self written promotional articles like this 92.95.93.78 (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very clear cut case of a non-notable person. Badharlick (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this should be on LinkdIn, not a supposed encylopædia. It’s essentially an advert for a self declared “expert” fishing for media appearances. 141.195.160.217 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was only created in August 2023, her media appearances long predate that - this[14] is from 2015. I think it's important that media pundits have articles, it enables everyone to easily look at their credentials and assess their motivations. Orange sticker (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, Wikipedia policy does not care about your opinions on how you think the world ought to be. Badharlick (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"easily look at their credentials and assess their motivations" Where she works already comes up on every article about her lol. Why would I need a Wikipedia page for this? Tweedle (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly not autobiographical as has been alleged - the creating editor, @Starklinson:, although they have chosen to remain as a redlinked editor without a userpage, has created and edited a wide range of articles over seven years (in contrast to the nominator of this AfD who appears to be proposing this AfD as their first edit). Appears to be a notable expert in the field, cited in many sources. The disambiguation, needed to distinguish her from Z G (actress), could perhaps be "(migration specialist)" to avoid any perceived subjectivity in "expert", so perhaps Keep and move. PamD 08:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all this including altering the title.Orange sticker (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD, I'm thinking this discussion could end up as being a no consensus outcome. What do you feel about (refugee advocate) as the disambiguation? TarnishedPath^talk 12:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Not sure about "advocate". She describes herself on LinkedIn as "migration policy specialist". I think I'd still go with "(migration specialist)", which covers a wider range of activity than "advocate" but avoids the possible puffery of "expert". The category Category:Experts on refugees, which was created in 2015, is slightly odd, with no parent category in a "people by occupation" tree. It's difficult to find a descriptor which fits someone employed in a field, rather than various "activists" categories or disambiguators. PamD 18:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence she is a migration 'specialist' or expert. This appears to be a confusion of one sided activism with actual non-partisan knowledge. Working for a pro-immigration ngo for asylum seekers is hardly expertise and this characterisation favours open border policy which is contentious in the public realm. Must be deleted and replaced with something like 'activist' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A10:D582:D18:0:AC59:B40E:AD1E:937B (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep surprised to see this as I recognised the name immediately, has appeared regularly on news programmes and is referred to as an expert as references and news search show. Orange sticker (talk)
Delete: Per WP:NOTRESUME. TarnishedPath^talk 10:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed how this was nominated by, and many of the votes are by, new users who have made no other contributions to the project so searched Twitter and it seems the subject of this article made a tweet yesterday that received a lot of attention and then Twitter users brought attention to her Wikipedia page. I've looked to see if there is an appropriate template to flag this AfD but can't find one, but it seems to be this has been nominated in bad faith Orange sticker (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that we don't allow a brand-new editor to create an article in mainspace, but we do allow them to create an AfD. Perhaps this should be reconsidered? PamD 11:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD and @Orange sticker, I've added a {{notavote}} notice. However, I must note that the first and third editors to !vote delete after nomination are editors who have been on Wikipedia 19 years and 9 years respectively, so while there are some IPs voting and the article was nominated by a very new user, I don't think it's completely accurate to state that many of the votes are by new users. TarnishedPath^talk 12:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Yes but: did you see the editing history of the 19-year editor? 4 edits since 2019, of which one to their user page, one to their talk page. Not a very active editor. The 9-year editor does seem to be a regular contributor on a range of topics. PamD 13:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree that it's highly unusual when a day old account makes such a nomination and then is followed by some IPs participating, I really don't think that's enough to make judgments about longstanding editors regardless of their recent history. TarnishedPath^talk 13:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think rather than back or forth about who is editing perhaps engaging with the substance here would be preferable - to qualify as an ‘expert’, you would presumably need well read academic publications and so on. Every Think Tank employee in the U.K. doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, even if they are occasionally cited in the press. The subject has no published books, academic papers, etc; this is clearly below the threshold of noteworthy-ness. Plus the article is promotional in tone and I strongly suspect some connection, financial or otherwise, between the main editor and the subject 2A01:CB06:B852:BE75:69B1:C245:F364:C83B (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Activity level is not a requirement for a users vote to be considered legitimate. I find your arguments in this discussion to be highly suspect in their motivation, as you appear to be attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the vote rather than participating in the actual discussion. Badharlick (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely bad etiquette to assume bad faith as you are. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, provided they follow the rules set out in the policy. It does not exist for cabals of users to gatekeep others from contributing. Badharlick (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you, @PamD:. I only put (migration expert) because I didn't know what else to call her - that's how she's often referred to by the British press. I don't think 'expert' is necessarily biased, it just means she's done significant research on the topic. And I don't think 'activist' quite fits. However, if anyone has a better idea for the title, I'd be open to that. – Starklinson 13:13 UTC
- ALSO, Wikipedia has a category Category:Experts on refugees, suggesting the language of 'expert' is not considered too partial for Wikipedia. I would also like to make it very clear that I have never received payment for my work on Wikipedia, nor have I ever made a page for someone as a favour. I know none of these people personally. – Starklinson 21:43 UTC
Delete: Appears in various media as a subject expert, but I don't find much coverage about this person. Source 2 is a "30 under 30 list" in a PR item. The BBC sources is an interview where she talks about things. Source 14 is ok-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about source 1? Starklinson (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interview with/about her, not terrible but not nearly enough. Generally don't count for RS as they are primary. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the provenance of this article, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Awards are WP:MILL (a trade pub's 30 under 30), and the rest of the sources are WP:INTERVIEWS (which do not contribute to notability), WP:ROUTINE coverage of organizations she works for and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. No obvious redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with this. Badharlick (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could draftify be an option? – Starklinson 13:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starklinson, draftification is generally for newish articles, not for ones which have already been around for a year and haven't demonstrated that they meet our notability guidelines in that time. See WP:DRAFTNO. TarnishedPath^talk 06:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Oaktree b and Dclemens1971. It also does read somewhat like a resume. Flyingfishee (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As PamD explains, the accusation of autobiography doesn't hold water. And while some of the sources are interviews or trivial, there are multiple sources that are prose (not interviews) and that focus on Gardner as a person (are not trivial). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those articles constitute WP:SIGCOV. They are WP:ROUTINE coverage of her in her capacity as an employee of her organization. The National article in particular is primarily composed of her quotations. The only material we could extract on her encyclopedically is that she worked for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While it is difficult to imagine that consensus will be achieved on this one, there is clearly enough interest in this discussion to give it another try.

Note: Important procedural issues have been raised here, such as Pam's observation about allowing new editors to create AfDs but not articles in mainspace. That may need to be discussed elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject seems to have expertise in migration and policy, as evidenced by her education and the experience detailed in the article. This is supported by the citations, which often involve news outlets seeking or highlighting the subject's thoughts on these topics, e.g. "Asylum aid charity: Migrant crisis 'disgraceful'". BBC News. 30 July 2015. and Morrison, Hamish (22 February 2023). "Asylum expert Zoe Gardner schools Jonathan Gullis on why refugees come to UK". The National. The article could be better written but that's not a reason to delete. Nnev66 (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not useful for establishing WP:SIGCOV. TarnishedPath^talk 01:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say anything in WP:SIGCOV about interviews not counting? Although I agree the BBC one probably wouldn't for notability I think it's evidence of expertise (or why would they interview her?) I would also count the PRWeek 30 under 30 article (yes, references like these are a bit promotional but I'd still count it). In addition to The National reference noted above, the following references in the article also have more significant coverage:
Smith, Ginny (8 February 2024). "Defenders of Democracy: Zoe Gardner". Sussex Bylines. (I don't know how reliable it is but it has editorial oversight)

Dadlani, Priya (18 April 2016). "What would 'Brexit' mean for refugees?". Thomson Reuters Foundation News.
Nnev66 (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Thomson Reuters article is not WP:SIGCOV of Gardner -- it provides sigcov of the migration issue and quote her incidentally to her work. That's WP:ROUTINE. The Sussex Bylines piece is an WP:INTERVIEW; its content is entirely sourced to Gardner herself and thus is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant notability. TarnishedPath^talk 01:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the WP:INTERVIEW link as I hadn't seen that - it reads to me that interviews are OK if the interviewer is an established journalist or at least independent of the subject. I don't know Sussex Bylines so can't tell what the situation is there. I tend to include articles for notability that have at least a few sentences about the person provided there are multiple other sources, which there appear to be here. This one may be an edge case in that regard. Nnev66 (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I voted delete on the original listing and I'd just like to clarify my vote now that this has been relisted. As far as I understand this is basically a spokesperson for a few NGOs (most notably Asylum aid and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles), who has had some occasional past media coverage as part of her role as a spokesperson for an NGO. Seems pretty clear to me that this is non-notable, unless we should start creating articles for every spokesperson on the basis they they've appeared in some media coverage as part of their job. Flyingfishee (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems substantial disagreement over whether the sources are or are not sufficient to establish notability. A detailed analysis of available sources would be a great deal more helpful than discussion of who is making arguments or why.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources appear to be blogs (Brexit Spot), or paid PR opportunities (30 under 30 - you buy a listing in these, its like a 'best european xyz') and are commercial work, aimed to promote the media career of Zoe Gardner. The one or two non-blog / podcast sources, a single mention in Thompson Reuters and one Huffington Post article, do not meet the criteria for significance. Zoe is not an academic - she hasn't finished her PhD, and appears to have no cited publications. So she is not an academic expert, and neither do most early career academics have wikipedia pages. She has appeared once or twice in the press as a talking head, mostly in extremely small blogs that do not meet the thresholds for significance or realiability. Some of these 'sussex news'? appear to be miniscule local blogs.

I appreciate the points about new users recommending deletion, but I do not see how in this case any other decision could be appropriate. Wikipedia isn't LinkedIn, and shouldn't exist to promote media careers that are not already well established, especially not with misleading language which implies Zoe is an academic expert or has published books on the topic. I do not see any compelling arguments to keep the article.

Regarding PamD's points about the creator of the article having made many edits - if you look through them, they are all of early stage professionals, actors, media figures and so on, and the institutions they work for. They are clearly working on an agency basis, dealing with little known authors, actors and media commentators. A thorough review of recent edits makes the commercial nature of their work obvious. I do not think this is a credible argument to keep the article, which is clearly suspect. Ieusuiarnaut (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean just look at this - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Stacey_Halls

He is leaving draft articles online to show to clients to confirm they are happy with them. He's even left 'draft' in the title! This is blatant commercial misuse of Wikipedia by a media professional. All of these articles should be closely reviewed. Ieusuiarnaut (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ieusuiarnaut As you have only been an editor since 21 August you may not be familiar with the concept of "Draft", which is a standard way in which many editors choose to work on an article before it is ready for "main space". See WP:DRAFT for more information. Your accusation that @Starklinson: is an undisclosed paid editor is a serious WP:Personal attack. I invite them to respond to it here, and suggest that you become more familiar with Wikipedia's policies and practices before accusing any other editors of malpractice. PamD 12:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @PamD:. I would like to reiterate – I have never received payment for my work on Wikipedia and nor have I ever made a page as a favour. I was recently invited by @Ipigott: to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red because I happen to create a lot of biographies of women. My recent focus has been on writers (particularly in the UK), though I don't limit myself to any one topic. Starklinson (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see your very first edits involved a similar argument over an (eventually deleted?) page for a minor YouTuber http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Safiya_Nygaard_(2nd_nomination) - you have since continued to work almost exclusively on pages for minor media figures, both men and women. Regardless of whether this is a bizarre labour of love or paid work, Zoe's page does not include enough relevant, high-quality sources, she appears to hold no important public position, and is not widely known despite a few brief media appearances. The article, particularly but not only in its describing her as an 'expert', is written in a promotional style. It would not be out of place in a corporate biography or Linkedin page. The most substantial source, 'Sussex Byline', does not even have its own wikipedia page. It is not appropriate to give every early career think tank employee in the UK their own wikipedia page. Ieusuiarnaut (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accept assessing the article on its own merit, I do not accept WP:Personal attacks. Pulling up one of the first articles a user ever worked on over 6 years ago (the subject of which now has a Wikipedia page anyway) is not an argument and not how Wikipedia works. The vast majority of the articles I create get approved without issue, and the handful that didn't have not interfered with my ability to edit long term.

In addition, most Wikipedia editors do it as a hobby, or there wouldn't be rules about payment.

As @PamD: said, you seem to be making assumptions that certain things – like working on drafts until they're ready for publication, for example – are a problem.

I have also already said I'm okay with changing the title to something like (researcher). I'd assumed it was impartial enough given Category:Experts on refugees exists, but I'm not fussed about it either way. Starklinson (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ieusuiarnaut You are very new to Wikipedia, at least as a registered editor. You seem not to understand that the whole thing is indeed "a bizarre labour of love". We editors are here to improve the encyclopedia, by creating and editing articles (though a small minority seem to be here with the sole purpose of getting one article deleted). And recent page creations will tend to be for early-career people, as the long-established notable people in a field should already have articles. Hence many new articles are created for 20-year-old footballers, far fewer for those who've been playing professionally for 10 years. PamD 10:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources appear to be blogs she receives WP:SIGCOV from the BBC [15], Channel 4 news [16], The National [[17] and Huff Post [18]. Orange sticker (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have attached the same Channel 4 section on 3 times, please adjust two of your links. HuffPost on Political matters is 'No Consensus', so that cannot be used to demonstrate notability. That just leaves three 'major sources' left. The BBC is a two minute segment and is just about her talking about related migratory issues, not about her specifically which does not make it useful enough to qualify for an article. The Channel 4 4min segment is fine maybe (I have not really looked at that am being generous) as justification. For The National, the real subject matter of this one is Jonathan Gullis (which would be best on his page) and his claims as the article would not exist on it's own without that, not Zoe Gardner in of herself to justify it as worthy of her article's inclusion (this also applies to the HuffPost). I would only really consider a good source which would be of near noteworthiness is the article entirely on her by Sussex Bylines, but that's another question as to whether or not your accept them as noteworthy. Tweedle (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the reasons given here by others and at the very, very least the "migration expert" title should be removed. This person has not published anything of their own and they don't appear in Google Scholar which should at least be a some sort of a prerequisite for being titled as "expert". Tweedle (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Brudenell, Countess of Cardigan

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

If there is any significant coverage of Lady Cardigan in reliable sources, I am not seeing it either in this article or in my Google Books search. All I see are genealogy compilations and that is indeed what the article amounts to for the most part. Surtsicna (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, United Kingdom, and England. Surtsicna (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't deny that we don't (or I don't) know much about the countess, but she was a Lady of the Bedchamber, for which we have a category. I feel we're a bit dismissive of female roles in society in past centuries, and that's one of the many reasons Wikipedia's gender balance is poor. Deb (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of agree with Deb. She had a relatively notable role in court. I wish someone with more knowledge or expertise could step forward and improve the article a little bit. Keivan.f^Talk 11:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But all three of us know that which role she held (and only for a few months, if I may add) is not what determines encyclopedic notability. The criterion (WP:GNG) is whether she has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So far I do not see evidence of significant coverage. I also think that having a biography with 95% of its content being who the subject's parents, husband, children, and brother-in-law were is not doing much at all for the state of women's biographies on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-) You don't think that having all those children was an achievement? Deb (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can cite a historian who considers it an achievement, please do. Surtsicna (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can measure a woman's level of notability by the number of children she has given birth to. But if indeed it was a notable achievement then one can cite a source and include the relevant info! Keivan.f^Talk 21:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Deb Killuminator (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killuminator, could you please explain how Deb has demonstrated that the article passes WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject")? Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The way the article itself is written does not make the subject look notable enough. As nominator explains, writing about the subject's parents, husband, children, and brother-in-law, etc., does not make her notable enough for a standalone encyclopedia article. The subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Prof.PMarini (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trying to search on newspapers.com [19] but i can't access. 58.136.119.76 (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and because she was the central character of a notable painting, England: Richmond Hill, on the Prince Regent's Birthday. Women of her time and station had a lot of influence without any formal power. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC) P.S. I added fascinating information about her family connections to the Charge of the Light Brigade and other famous descendants in British history. Bearian (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of that addresses WP:GNG concerns, i.e. the issue of her not receiving significant coverage in reliable sources. Her family connections and famous descendants mean nothing; see WP:INVALIDBIO. The only reason to have this article is if you, or someone, can prove that she has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm very conscious of the need to address the gender imbalance on Wikipedia, but it should be achieved by focusing on women scientists, doctors, engineers, activists and leaders. Not by keeping an article on someone who fails WP:NBIO that is virtually entirely describing a woman through the context of her husband, brothers, father and many children. Frankly, that's an insult to the goal of improving women's biographies on Wikipedia. This is a textbook case of WP:INVALIDBIO: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability." AusLondonder (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was the Lady of the Bedchamber during her time, a notable and high-ranking social position in the palace. This role may be equivalent to the Sang-bok rank in the inner court of Joseon. The Sang-bok rank in Korea could pass WP:NPOL as it was one of the highest positions in the Joseon inner court. The Korean monarchy had two courts: the royal court (which functioned like a parliament) and the inner court (the court of the palace). The internal court, headed by the queen, wielded both political and judicial power. However, I'm unsure if the Lady of the Bedchamber had influence similar to that of the Sang-bok. Nonetheless, Lady of the Bedchamber served as like the queen's chief secretary, which could be considered notable, and she was also a subject of royal artwork. Therefore, I believe her role is significant enough to warrant inclusion. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And which sources discuss her in detail as a proof of how exalted her position was? Surtsicna (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The woman of the bedchamber is Her Majesty's right-hand woman and plays a key role in making decisions about social engagements. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking about the position. I am asking about the woman who is the subject of this article. You claim that the position she held was "a notable and high-ranking social position". Very well. She must be thoroughly discussed in the sources then. Where are these sources that discuss Penelope Brudenell, Countess of Cardigan, in great detail? Surtsicna (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per above. She would almost certainly have more sources if historical sources wrote more about women, but the position is notable. Relinus (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there is currently no consensus. Since there is disagreement over sourcing, can we get a source assessment? And, although half of the editors here are arguing for a Keep would editors consider a Merge or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Northern Ireland

Belfast Bulls

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NSPORTS / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American_Football_Ireland#Defunct_teams. As an WP:ATD-R. And per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCD American Football. Or, failing that, simply delete. (The only three sources I can find, which cover this short-lived amateur sports club, have been added to the article. Being this, this, and this. All examples of less-than-independent coverage and mostly trivial-passing-mentions. Nothing which establishes independent notability. The only reason for advocating a redirect, as an ATD, is because of this AfD outcome. Whatever the case, a standalone title cannot be justified on the basis of the sources. Which do not establish independent notability.) Guliolopez (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Northern Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland

Wales

Bishop Wilkins College

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

The subject doesn't appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia. toweli (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Christianity, United Kingdom, England, and Wales. toweli (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 14:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only the lack of WP:SIGCOV and the fact that there is not a single source cited in the article, I found little to prove widespread, independent secondary coverage. GuardianH (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Lee Dark

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

This article is based on interviews or publicity material in which the subject makes various claims of extraordinary musical ability and success. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject for these claims. gnu 57 18:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sexuality and gender, and Wales. gnu 57 18:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I have just looked on Nexis which I have access to through my university, and there are sources on there for at least part of the article. I'd be happy to go through and resolve the sourcing issues on these pages with those sources (I am going to do this now regardless). It would seem a shame to delete the article with those options around. Flatthew (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly a number of claims in the article are not based in reality, but the article is worth a re-do. There is something here, even if it's obviously not what is outlined. Flatthew (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that a number of otherwise reliable publications appear to be taking the subject's claims at face value. The 50,000 albums sold is almost certainly false. The famous relatives are unverifiable. The audio tracks on YouTube attributed to Dark are actually studio recordings by other singers (e.g., [20][21]). I have found no indication that the subject has ever performed live, in any setting. gnu 57 10:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s an interesting point that otherwise reliable sources interview a subject and take their claims at face value when perhaps they aren’t accurate. I noticed in a Wales on Sunday article I found it was written that she performed with a band called Enigma, but there are a couple bands with that name neither of which list her as a member. But that doesn’t mean she didn’t perform with them. There’s also a CD she released but now that I think about it I couldn’t find it. So while my recommendation was ‘’’keep’’’ based on WP:RS guidance, I do have pause… Nnev66 (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough coverage in WP:RS for WP:GNG. Nnev66 (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and improve. I see that there are already edits after the AfD nomination, the article may need further improvement. Sources seem to exist to prove WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Prof.PMarini (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement about the adequacy of the sources. An assessment would be helpful of new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although some of the claims are not well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amel Rachedi

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

Not finding sufficient WP:SIGCOV of this individual who "presents" a show on her own Instagram channel to meet WP:GNG. She doesn't appear to meet any SNG either. There's just this story in WalesOnline; the rest is tabloid coverage excluded as SIGCOV under WP:SBST, or it's in unreliable sources like Forbes contributors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Entertainment. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Some coverage in a newspaper from Jamaica [22]. With the Wales newspaper, just barely enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Radio, Television, Internet, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no firm consensus. Also, participants, avoid "per X" comments which are practically valueless.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep coverage available, see first comment --ProudWatermelon (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, ProudWatermelon, are you ignoring my advice or making a joke? Sigh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what ? ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess rewriting the same argument as more value, sure ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the "Sigh" was just unnecessarily rude and provocative ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think "sigh" was rude and provocative? Compared to names I've been calles on this platform, it seems polite to me. It is just expressing exasperation, it's not about you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. A discussion of specific sources and whether or not they help establish notability would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. The Jamaica Gleaner piece reads as promotional rather than as journalism. Sandstein 06:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Amser Te (via WP:PROD on 14 August 2023)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

England

Others

Northern Ireland

Others

Wales

Others