Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|England|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to England. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for England related AfDs

Scan for England related Prods
Scan for England related TfDs


England

Uri Gordon (anarchist)

Uri Gordon (anarchist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO and lacks WP:SIGCOV. The sources here, as well as those found in a WP:BEFORE search, are primary in that they consist mainly of interviews and self-published works by the article subject. No in-depth, third party articles by reliable publications would be found. As an editor commented on the article Talk page, appearance in other language Wikis is not among criteria for evaluating notability for the English Wikipedia. Geoff | Who, me? 16:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politics, Israel, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (not yet a !vote): his Google Scholar profile [1] shows three publications with triple-digit citation counts; this sounds strong to me but how does it compare to others in similar topics? I found and added to the article three published reviews (in academic journals from mainstream publishers) of his book Anarchy alive!, but I didn't find reviews for his other books Routledge Handbook of Radical Politics, Six Zionist Essays, Hier und jetzt: anarchistische Praxis und Theorie (maybe a translation of Anarchy alive!?), and Anarchists Against the Wall: Direct Action and Solidarity with the Palestinian Popular Struggle. Another review of at least a second book would be needed for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a wee note that Six Zionist Essays was written by a different Uri Gordon. — LittleDwangs (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing. Thanks for the correction. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also found a couple of reviews of Anarchists Against the Wall, one in Fifth Estate (Spring/Summer 2014, Vol. 49 Issue 1, p34-35) and one in Social Movement Studies (May 2016, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p335-338). — LittleDwangs (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1, WP:AUTHOR, and the additional reliably-published reviews found by LittleDwangs, which I have found links for and added to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise Miles

Cruise Miles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of referencing to prove notability. Source 1 is the best thing in the article, and it's fairly trivial (it's a promotion, not a news story). Sources 2, 5 and 7 are unavailable. Source 3 is an advert. Source 4 is clearly promotional copy. Source 6 deals with a different company and source 8 is not reliable. And the official website link in the External links section is dead. Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 12:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St David's School, Purley

St David's School, Purley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school. The best I can find is this brief article in the local paper about the children making a music video, which seems run of the mill and not worth adding. I do not think the school meets WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Tacyarg (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability whatsoever. Cannot find anything else either. Procyon117 (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten

Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP issues - there are too many dubious and poorly-sourced claims in this article for an article about a living person. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bilateral relations, China, France, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I've tracked down a number of claims - service in Chinese parliament, involvement in Iran talks, chairing the East-West strategic studies institute, which are sourced and seem to raise at least a colorable claim of notability. The claim to serve in parliament is supported by The Diplomat article, but is probably misstated as it seems he took part in a Jilin Municipal level CPPCC meeting[2])] as opposed to service at the national level. Other claims like buying the palace, and testimony before parliament, are not very notable but are verifiable. And some other facts, like his history as a diplomat, are not well sourced although I haven't done searches to see if they are hoaxes. Why is this not a situation where the article can be edited rather than deleted? Oblivy (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - there are a number of issues with this article that have concerned me for some time. They are most obvious when you consider it in conjunction with a group of related articles: Institute for East West Strategic Studies, Pfetten's foundation; Apethorpe Palace, his home and the foundation's office; Owen Matthews, the foundation's vice-chair; and the International Foxhound Association - currently also up for deletion - which Pfetten chairs.
Promotional content - the content these editors add tends to be highly promotional. Counter wise, repeated efforts are made to remove anything they consider "negative";
Authorship and COI - User talk:Prinkipo71 is the major contributor to this article, and its originator. They are also the major contributor to, and originator of, the Matthews article. User talk:Baronpfetten has also edited this. Prinkipo71 is also the second major contributor to the Apethorpe Palace article. They have described themselves as "Apethope's archivist and historian",[3]. The first contributor to the Institute article is an IP, the second, and its originator, is User talk:Baronpfetten, a user name which suggests an obvious COI. Baronpfetten is also the major contributor to, and the originator of, the International Foxhound Association article. Both Prinkipo71 and Baronpfetten are broadly single-purpose accounts, in that they only edit this group of articles. I think it highly likely there is a bunch of undeclared COI. It is also worth noting the contributions of User talk:StevenGui/User talk:GeorgeThuiller, to these articles and to that on Tactical nuclear weapon, [4]. After an initial denial Gui acknowledged they were employed by the Chinese government, to which Pfetten has close links. Oddly, Thuiller - an editor with 11 edits - took it upon themselves to edit a comment made by Gui, on Gui's own Talkpage, to amend Gui's acknowledgement that they work "for" the Chinese Government, to suggest that they work "with" it, [5]. Apart from Gui, none of the other editors has made any Conflict of Interest declarations regarding these articles.
SPA/IP editing - this is very common to all of the above, and I strongly suspect Checkuser would find connections. See, as one example, these edits, [6] to the IFA deletion discussion by User:Tintin2004123 who joined two days ago, specifically to try to stop the deletion, the only edits they have ever made.
In short, I think these articles are a mess of promotional editing from editors/IPs, all certainly connected and all with undeclared COIs. I have previously flagged it with ARBs, but it has not been taken forward, as far as I am aware. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although the article has a section for Academic career, the subject seems to have published very few articles or books. I see little to no sign of WP:NPROF notability. I am skeptical of GNG. His house does appear to possibly be notable, and I suppose that redirection to a stub about the house would be an option. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That may well be a way forward. I am very confident that Apethorpe Palace is notable, per Wikipedia:NBUILDING. It's a Grade I listed building, has a long and illustrious history, with notable owners/visitors, and it has been very extensively covered, in architectural publications, in historical journals and in the media. I'd certainly support a re-direct, which could also cover the Institute. KJP1 (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Charles

Jonathan Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a journalist and added three references. Two are not independent, however, and the other is a passing mention. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST. The article has been marked as possibly not notable since 2020. Tacyarg (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Variable State

Variable State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails company notability and the awards don't appear sufficiently exceptional. One paragraph about the founding, which could be merged. IgelRM (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unsatisfactory basis for deletion.
The company is noteworthy and is currently featured prominently in its industry press, as recently as 7 days ago:
https://www.gameinformer.com/news/2024/06/09/polaris-is-a-co-op-pve-shooter-coming-to-pc-this-year-with-fully-destructible
https://www.gematsu.com/2024/06/sci-fi-co-op-shooter-polaris-announced-for-pc
https://www.pcgamesn.com/polaris/new-sci-fi-pve-shooter
The company has been nominated for numerous prestigious awards, including 3 British Academy Game Awards. It is the recipient of a BAFTA for Music and has won the Writers Guild award for Best Writing in a Video Game.
Furthermore, the company remains active, developing and releasing games, and is considerably more active than other similar game companies whose pages are not nominated for deletion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campo_Santo_(company)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Sparrow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_Machine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simogo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messhof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Road
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Squid_(company)
My concern is that this nomination for deletion is politically motivated rather than being a genuine suggestion. Deleting this page would be wildly inconsistent with the practice of deleting and updating other video game company pages.
This request for deletion should be cancelled at the earliest opportunity. Badlandssummary (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"My concern is that this nomination for deletion is politically motivated rather than being a genuine suggestion" what a very serious accusation. Do you have any proof to back that up at all or are you just saying that? Procyon117 (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the only logical explanation for why this particular article has been singled out for deletion when numerous other video game company articles, related to video game studios of equivalent or lesser notoriety, have not been targeted in this way. Either apply a policy consistently or not at all. This deletion decision reflects very poorly on the instigator and those who defend it. It's an arbitrary, unliteral decision, and in the absence of a consistently-applied approach, feels like an attack. If you feel that accusation is serious, then so do I. It is incumbent on the deleter to explain why they are choosing a targeted attack and not a blanket policy. Badlandssummary (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided absolutely zero proof that this is "targeted" in any way, shape or form. We are humans, things are going to slip under the radar, and as others have said, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. Procyon117 (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it helps to know, but e.g. Giant Sparrow and Giant Squid (company) appear to fail notability too and I or someone else might nominate them as well. IgelRM (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Badlandssummary (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you spamming the same thing three times? Procyon117 (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, a mistake on the editor's part. This is my first experience dealing with a deletion request. And given the request seems so targeted and wildly inconsistent with the rules applied to other comparable and lesser-known game studios, I felt a sense of panic and my emotions were running hot. I don't understand why this article has been singled out in this way. If a rule is going to be applied consistently across all video game studios, then I would understand it, but if this particular article is going to be the target of a political action, that seems unjustified and against the spirit of this website. Badlandssummary (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've elected to remove them, as I assume them to be mistaken on the editor's part. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They seem like a perfectly fine studio and they even arguably have a piece of SIGCOV at GamesIndustry.biz, but notability is not inherited from a studio's games, therefore they fail WP:NCORP at the moment even if their games are in fact notable. Badlandssummary appears to be an WP:SPA, so if they really are a member of the studio or closely associated with it, then I urge them to read the guidelines on WP:COI rather than embarrass themselves by insulting editors and making WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, which will not prevent the article from being removed. Work with people to find notability, and if none can be found it probably doesn't belong. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also add that notability is not temporary; once you are notable you remain that way, we are not going and deleting Square (video game company) because they are no longer making games. It's getting there that is the problem, and often people with conflict of interest totally ignore notability when making a page because they are simply there to publicize. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are numerous items of significant coverage. This assessment feels extremely weak, particularly if you directly compare the Variable State article to other equivalent articles, such as those I've cited in my response above. Why would I feel embarrassed? I've not insulted anyone. I've made fair and justified accusations based on the unilateral decision to target a specific article, rather than apply a blanket policy. You are embarrassing yourself by making unsubstituted accusations as to my identity, when you have no basis for doing so other than your own opinion. If my tone is urgent and anxious, it is because I am witnessing an obvious injustice here and am disappointed in the hypocritical and targeted actions of a few editors who are not acting in the spirit of this website and community.
    Regarding articles highlighting the noteworthiness of this studio, I would direct you to the following:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gaming/what-to-play/virginia-review--the-x-files-meets-twin-peaks-in-a-remarkable-in/
    https://time.com/4498103/virginia-review-pc-xbox/
    https://www.gameinformer.com/games/virginia/b/playstation4/archive/2016/09/22/game-informer-virginia-review.aspx
    https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-09-22-virginia-review
    https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/289831?
    https://www.pcgamer.com/virginia-wins-the-writers-guild-of-great-britains-prize-for-best-game-writing/
    https://www.gamespot.com/articles/nominees-for-2017-independent-games-festival-award/1100-6446752/
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csmZMNXWZrw
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb_IkGzFY1o
    https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/how-virginias-cinematic-editing-works
    https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/road-to-the-igf-variable-state-s-i-virginia-i- Badlandssummary (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are all discussing the video game, Virginia. Which already has an article here and is indisputably notable. We're talking about the studio, though, which none of those articles are specifically about.
    Saying a deletion nomination is based on politics with zero proof is not "fair and justified". Seriously, you'll want to stop the ad hominem insults claiming actions are "targeted" against you with no evidence whatsoever or you will definitely be blocked for incivility. Yes, there are plenty of spammy game studio articles on Wikipedia, that does not absolve your article from needing to be notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My criticism of your argument is threefold:
    1) What good is any policy if it is not applied consistently and fairly? The subject of the article clearly passes a higher notoriety threshold than other examples I have given in this discussion, so why should it be singled out? Furthermore, its content is more widely sourced and more thoroughly cited than many of the other examples I have provided. As such, if this article is to be singled out, that implies an injustice, and a policy which is being exploited for partisan reasons. If you were a parking attendant who found a street full of cars with no parking tickets, would it be fair and reasonable for you to cherry pick specific cars to receive penalties? No, that'd be judged as prejudiced and irrational. It is similarly prejudicial to target this article on the basis of an infraction of policy when there are worse offenders elsewhere which are not receiving similar attention. Fairness is the cornerstone of justice.
    2) The accusation of ad hominem against me has no basis. My challenge to the editor who triggered this deletion process was to explain why this article had been singled out, when so many more articles fall far below the standard of content and citation in this article. Therefore, it is only reasonable to ask why the policy being used to support the deletion decision is being applied in a narrow and targeted manner, rather than consistently and fairly applied. It implies an agenda or political motive.
    3) The accusation of "incivility" is spurious in the extreme. If you claim my tone of my replies, which have most certainly not involved foul or threatening language, are of greater concern than the unilateral decision to delete an article which comprises many hours of hard work and which meets the standard met by other equivalent article, then I question your ethics. I recognise no incivility in my conduct, merely a justified distress at both the obliteration of my work, representing hours and days of my life, and the unjust way in which this process is being conducted.
    If this results in my being banned, then I am being excluded from a community which does not value evidence, fairness, or justice, and which wields its authority in a selective and inconsistent manner, in which case I shall perceive it as no slight. I am grateful my remarks here serve as my public testimony. I am not embarrassed by them. They have been made in good faith. Badlandssummary (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly you did not read the linked WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because it explains in detail why your (1) and (2) argument and your entire claim of unfairness is false. Messhof, which you linked, is also probably non-notable. In that case it *should* be deleted, but nobody got around to it yet. However, the fact that yours did not slip past the radar does not mean the nominator was playing favorites. It's possible they did not even realize it was not notable as it was created 7 entire years ago when they may or may not have been there checking new pages. Some straight-up hoaxes have existed for 10+ years simply because nobody found them, it's very easy for stuff to slip past the radar sometimes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Although I realized that Messhof is judged differently as we have different policies for individual developers as we do companies; WP:NCORP is more stringent than WP:NARTIST, probably due to how common it is for companies to attempt to game the system.) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because other bad things exist doesn't mean we get to keep this bad thing. What political motivation are you even implying here? What political ideology or agenda is demonstrated in this article that would be targeted? What "community that doesn't value evidence" are you speaking out against? What the fuck are you even talking about? λ NegativeMP1 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't realise that things can pass under the radar, and their arguments certainly aren't helping their case. Procyon117 (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zx. Also, I feel like there is some WP:COI problem here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I reviewed this articles GAN (which, quite frankly, should have never even happened because of how poorly written it was), I got the feeling that this topic wasn't notable, but that's a topic I personally believe should be kept out of GAN as it's not one of the criteria. This discussion further proves to me that this topic likely isn't notable if the article creator is resulting to personal attacks and accusations instead of actually demonstrating how this topic is worthy for inclusion on Wikipedia. λ NegativeMP1 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining

Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear sources demonstrate notability. Most contributions to this article are from connected contributors, as noted on talk page. -- Beland (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Engineering. Beland (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By definition learned societies lead research and thinking in their field, publish the authoritative journals, and have all leading figures in their fellowships. There is rarely going to be a plethora of third party sources as there might be for k-pop stars, Pokémon or footballers. Nevertheless a quick search brought up 1, 2 and 3. Mccapra (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the Institute meets all the requirement for WP:SIGCOV. It is THE institute for material scientists and recognised by both the UK Science and Engineering Councils. IOM3 came to existence following the merger of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy (founded 1892 which also a result of a different merger that involved the Iron and Steel Institute followed by the Metal Institute) and the Institute of Materials.
Actually the prizes/awards that this institute give defines the notability of multiple academics here (e.g., Bessemer Gold Medal) not to mention their fellows (FIMMM) although their notability based on FIMMMM alone can be debated when compared to FRS and FREng. I won't lie, I am bit baffled by this nom! :FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Joseph (politician)

Joe Joseph (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Member of a Parish council, whose sole news articles about his recent decision to run in the current election. If he wins, automatically notable, but at this point he is subject to general notability policy, and has no indication of passing Brislian (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draft per WP:TOOSOON. All the coverage is specifically related to one event WP:BLP1E, if he does get elected he will be notable as you mention, thus drafting is best for now. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Beyond running as a candidate, the individual is not notable. TOOSOON applies. Can be re-created after the election win, if it goes that way. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per WP:TOOSOON, and others above. Sal2100 (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a blatant example of not notable. WP:TOOSOON shouldn't apply here as otherwise you could apply to all the other candidates standing in the general election, but the editorial guidelines are quite clear that only notable people get articles. Simply standing for election in a national contest does not automatically make someone notable, so this should be an automatic deletion as a simple case of not being noteworthy. Antonine (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails multiple categories related to BLP articles. Textbook example of not notable and not meriting an individual Wiki article. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous votes. Unelected candidates are not inherently notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lodge

Michael Lodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP about the leader of an organization, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for leaders of organizations. As always, just having a job is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but the content here is strictly on the level of "he is a person who has a job, the end", with absolutely no content about any specific things he did in the job, and the "referencing" consists entirely of his primary source staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers rather than any evidence of third-party reliable source coverage about his work in media or books. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southport Sockman

Southport Sockman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, and probably WP:BLP1E and WP:NCRIME. Mdann52 (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mildly amusing anecdote, but that doesn't make it notable. Athel cb (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep on this one, though the article really does need to pull it's socks up. This was not a single incident, but rather a spree of incidents over several years - a lot of socks. Furthermore, although the court case is reported to have been in 1998 there does appear to be WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the UK-based "sockmen", including: coverage from Canada from 1996 (Medicine Hat News), a 2009 article ([7]), a film produced in 2015/16 (Liverpool Echo, IMDb, Mirror), a 2017 book ([8]), a Connecticut radio show in 2020 ([9]), and a retrospective article in 2021 (Daily Record). Coverage could be better, but does appear to be much more than "breaking news". ResonantDistortion 18:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I have reverted the vandalism where an IP had added a third name to the perpetrators, and also added some of the above refs as citations within the article. ResonantDistortion 19:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dalleth

Dalleth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources and none when I search. Not notable— Iadmc♫talk  15:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have added references. Looks notable to me, and I think there will be additional coverage in offline sources and in Cornish-language texts - both whilst it was operating, and in memoirs and historical discussion of this period of the language movement. Tacyarg (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern England supercity

Northern England supercity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was originally a duplicate of a now deleted Manchester-Liverpool Megalopolis article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpool-Manchester megalopolis But was renamed from Manpool (a goofy portmanteau of Manchester and Liverpool) to Northern England Supercity, increasing the scope of the article. The article now seems to be about two things, one a proposed Northern England Supercity from 2004 which went nowhere (a topic which I think fails the General Notablity Guidelines) and the Manchester-Liverpool Megalopolis (Manpool) and uses original research to combine the two ideas into one article. Eopsid (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carried Away (Ooberman album)

Carried Away (Ooberman album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find much coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There's a review of the album by Ox-Fanzine, which I added to the article. The album is also mentioned in a Drowned in Sound review of the band's next album, and that's about it. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Ooberman. toweli (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Turnbull

Duncan Turnbull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player beyond basic coverage either from the clubs, his college, or transfer notes. It appears as though he never actually played a professional match, which might be a failure of WP:SPORTBASIC. The only thing of basic substance I found was this, which is local and behind a paywall. Anwegmann (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Square

Thai Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. WP:FAILN - organizations local to a city, town or country maybe added to respective article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London#Leisure_and_entertainment Wikilover3509 (talk) 7:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Edward Parker (police officer)

Edward Parker (police officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not meet criteria of notability Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seem to be police officers all over the world with this name... I get hits from the US, Australia and elsewhere, but nothing for this person. I'm not seeing more than a one or two line biography here, unsure of the notability. Lack of sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Coverage here in the Sydney Morning Herald from 1930 including biographical information [10]. A google books search focused on "Edward Parker" and "Special Branch" does identify a number of hits ([11]). There is potential for meeting notability guidelines therefore as an WP:ATD I suggest moving to draftspace for incubation. ResonantDistortion 10:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Rugby League Division Two

Midlands Rugby League Division Two (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Rugby League Division One

Midlands Rugby League Division One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Junior League

Midlands Junior League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a contested PROD, this does not qualify for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hull & District League

Hull & District League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cumbria Men's League

Cumbria Men's League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Cumberland League. This league was fairly short lived and appears to no longer exist. [12] J Mo 101 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So the Cumberland League is the league refered to as "Cumbria Rugby League" on the RFL website and not this one? Mn1548 (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the top division of by the looks of it [13]. Mn1548 (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland League

Cumberland League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would suggest that the nominator strike through the "Delete" in their update to keep from giving the impression it is a fresh !vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This league is now known as the "Iggesund Cumberland ARL". Article needs improving, but there appears to be quite a bit of coverage available on TotalRL and various Cumbrian news websites [14] [15] [16]. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following suggested redirects to this page and the given sources above: Keep and rename to "Cumbria Rugby League" per RFL website. Mn1548 (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CMS Yorkshire league

CMS Yorkshire league (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Sutcliffe's cricket career (1919–1927)

Herbert Sutcliffe's cricket career (1919–1927) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My third big afd nomination in the Anglo-Australian fancruft forrest on here, planted in the 2000s. Its simple, this time as it is a set of articles about Herbert Sutcliffe, where exactly identical articles were successfully called for deletion here just today Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:
Herbert Sutcliffe's cricket career (1928–1932) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Herbert Sutcliffe's cricket career (1933–1939) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If you can't describe a person's career in their own BLP article in several paragraphs, that might be a sign you should learn to edit, not infodump into three separate chronological articles. Nate • (chatter) 23:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nate above. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InterTown Series

InterTown Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly non notable competition that relys on a single source Mn1548 (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League Varsity Match

Rugby League Varsity Match (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It exists, but isn't notable. I couldn't find a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep: looks like the referencing work done since nomination is enough to justify WP:GNG. Storm machine (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I removed the notability tag after adding the ninth reference as this now meets GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basanth Sadasivan

Basanth Sadasivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor coverage in mediocre sources, but doesn’t appear to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Travel and tourism, and Singapore. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JohnInDC (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Pseudo-biographies hits the nail with this quote:
    If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context. If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was noted only in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all.
    The scattering of third party articles concerning (or sometimes merely including) the subject are not varied or in depth. Indeed the article must rely on the subject himself for such basic biographical facts as his birthdate (sourced to his Facebook page); his attendance and accomplishments at Durham University (his own Twitter feed); and his attendance at and degree from University College, London (his own LinkedIn account). In like fashion his high school attendance is not evidenced by any third party source but by a listing of graduates published by the school; and his travel industry employment, by employer releases. Further, lots of people have visited every UN country. It may be a great personal accomplishment but is not significant enough for either a standalone article or a personal one leveraging on it. JohnInDC (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is only a little in the way of significant coverage, and it fails WP:NSUSTAINED. There was a small flurry of news within the first couple of months following his arrival in Tuvalu. Since then, he's had some exposure as a source of travel advice, including one article in which he's the sole focus, but these aren't coverage of him. Largoplazo (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per reasons above. Not every world traveler, can get a page. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom. Notwithstanding the fact that the article needs improving, the individual has had sufficient coverage in the media. It is also flawed that there is just one article where he is the sole focus as per [1][2] However, it also appears that the article's subject appeared on a podcast by what appears to be the official Singporese News Channel (Channel News Asia)[3]. Why this was not referenced at any stage of the article is hard to understand
  • Keep. Subject has been in multiple news sources, including reputable heavyweights like Forbes, the Straits Times and CNN. The line determining what constitutes 'coverage' is a blurred one but at the end of the day his name, achievements and experiences are constantly the subject matter of multiple articles. Other world travelers with far less 'coverage' (e.g. Sal Lavallo, Jorn Bjorn Augestad) already have pages so let's try not to shift the goalposts based on our impressions of the individual page writers. — Teampkf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep The above charade is part of a protracted witch hunt by a group of disgruntled editors (namely @JohnInDC and @Largoplazo) who are unhappy at the fact that I did not accept some of their edits on the above page. First they opted to make unexplained deletions of sections of the article without discussing them first. Next they opted to post several threatening messages on my talk page (which have since been deleted) aimed at intimidating me into submission. When they found they were getting nowhere, they are now trying to get the article deleted which is interesting considering that they were so interested in the article previously and had so many edits to make (to the point that they engaged in edit warring behavior). A history of all these interactions can be seen on the original page’s history. It is important that Wikipedia does not condone such bullying behavior that also borders on harassment. Perceived “senior editors” do not have the right to push their way around an inclusive community like Wikipedia and attempt to use their “seniority” to intimidate others into accepting their way.
    Teddybrutus (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already warned you informally about not assuming good faith and accusing people, based on nothing, of ill motives instead of understanding and accepting the perfectly valid motives that they gave. I also pointed out that your accusations were nonsensical. But here you are again, apparently needing to stick to your unfounded and absurd witch hunt theory rather than accept there are normal procedural reasons for this. Therefore, I've posted a formal, and final, warning to your talk page. You may be close to being blocked. Largoplazo (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "'Most beautiful mountain in the world' should be on your bucket list". 25 January 2024.
  2. ^ https://www.webintravel.com/turning-to-human-advice-on-travel-planning-in-the-age-of-ai-and-chatgpt/ one article
  3. ^ "Daily Cuts - Destination Everywhere".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While those advocating Keep are all low edit accounts (and the article creator), several do argue that the quality of the sources is adequate so I think it's worth a relisting although it might be closed early.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This clearly fails WP:NSUSTAINED as stated above, and it's questionable whether there is even WP:SIGCOV (interviews with the subject do not count). In addition, I strongly suspect the page creator has an undisclosed WP:COI. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    agree with page creator having undisclosed COI
    previously posted evidence linking page creator to basanth sadasivan (might be same person) and was deleted 217.165.56.63 (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing in the profile strikes me as particularly notable. Agree with above comments re: WP:NSUSTAINED.-KH-1 (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Crofts

Nick Crofts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. There is some coverage of his resignation as a councillor but nothing independent about his political or professional career. Reads like a CV. Orange sticker (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demons Bridge railway station

Demons Bridge railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Of the three sources, two are trivial mentions and one does not mention the station at all. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you feel the need to copy-paste the same incoherent arguments across multiple AfDs, I will copy my refutation of your "arguments": I don't need to "get over" anything, train stations are not notable on Wikipedia simply by virtue of once existing, per community consensus. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nomination. The arguments above are thoroughly unconvincing, relying on made up policies and personal feelings. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It existed at one point and is documented to have. So you should get over it and accept it was once around when ROF Aycliffe existed. Personal feelings? Is it feeling oriented when arguing somewhere existed at one point. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per nomination would be the best choice here. While the station itself is notable only on a local level, the railway it once served is notable enough for a Wikipedia page. TH1980 (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After careful consideration of the content and sourcing of the article on Demons Bridge railway station, it is evident that significant concerns exist regarding its notability under Wikipedia's guidelines. The station appears to lack substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish its significance. While the topic is of local interest, the article does not meet the general notability guideline (GNG) due to insufficient verifiable information. Therefore, the recommended action is delete. This decision aligns with Wikipedia's core content policies, ensuring that articles reflect topics of encyclopedic significance with adequate sourcing. Alternative actions such as merge or redirect are not feasible given the current state of the article and the lack of related content to integrate or redirect towards.Yakov-kobi (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Strike out AI-generated comment. Owen× ☎ 12:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote this with ChatGPT, didn't you? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saltersgate Cottage railway station

Saltersgate Cottage railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Of the two sources, one does not mention the station at all. The other is a personal website (likely fails WP:RS) with a total of five sentences about the station. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Stanhope and Tyne Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge pertinent information and photograph into Stanhope and Tyne Railway would be a good idea. The station itself is not notable enough for a standalone article, but the railway itself is, so that page would be a good home for this info. TH1980 (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And what would go between High Stouk and the next article station? A redirect breaking the preceding or following station? It existed at one point and is documented to have. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP: Consistency and per WP: Notable. As it's got coverage in quite a few books and articles. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you're making up a non-existent "consistency" policy, this article cites no books, and the citations present do not give significant coverage of the station. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It existed at one point and is documented to have. So you should get over it and accept it was once on the Stanhope and Tyne Railway even on OS Maps which are a good source. Just be breaking consistency in the preceding and following stations table in that case. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to "get over" anything, train stations are not notable on Wikipedia simply by virtue of once existing, per community consensus. The existence of other stations is irrelevant, we are discussing this station and you have failed to refute any of the points I made above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cause your claiming it's based on personal feelings. In what way is it personal feelings? Its a few wiki editors claiming it is not notable? Yet it existed beforehand? So if it didn't exist it be a figment of my imagination. But it's been documented in books and on OS maps and there's nothing to refute. If one researches them proper they will be mentioned and recorded but in ones own mind. Newspapers or journals or a website should not be used as sources or a book. Or map. It should be a what? Government site? A forum? A notable book from Charles Dickens? What should it it be in the mind of @Trainsandotherthings? Enlighten me from one experienced editor to another? What should an Americans idea of a British railway station be? also @Pi.1415926535 and @TH1980. As I'm seeing nothing more than trying to remove articles that I've worked on in my own time and thoroughly researched just for you redirect them cause you don't either agree or know the lines all that well based on your localities internationally and lack of mindset to try and debate until now (Pi.). It's documented and notable like Crook and High Stouk stations. Accept it and stop looking for reasons to delete them. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonofBatley: Personal attacks are not acceptable. Instead of arguing and insulting editors, please read Wikipedia:Notability so you understand what "notability" means on Wikipedia. For something to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, merely existing is not enough. It needs to have significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. (Yes, that means that many former railway stations are not notable enough for Wikipedia - it is an encyclopedia, not a railway station database.) If that significant coverage is not present, you should not create the article in the first place, because it is likely to end up deleted. Instead, you should add the information to an existing article (like the line or the locality) where appropriate. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535:, I am not personally attacking anyone. I asked simple questions and created missing links on Clarence Railway and Stanhope and Tyne Railways railway topography tables. If I redirected other railway articles, I would be reverted without prior discussion. I have provided sources from OS maps, books, websites, and other historical sites. I am not implying that Americans cannot edit British railway articles. I am simply asking for what should be included in a notable article? Again keep per WP: Notability (and consistency for railway stations previous and following/terminus) and stopping the topography which has a lot of red links to be completed yet. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not personally attacking anyone. Care to explain this then? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Stanhope and Tyne Railway per nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    May as well do that to all the stations at Crook and Consett if that's the way to break consistency in the station articles. Not going to though and actually Disused Stations is an accepted article since it's in depth and uses sources to back it's pages up. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simpasture railway station

Simpasture railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Of the seven sources, two are trivial mentions, four don't mention the station at all, and one (Priestley) has brief mentions of a station of similar name but many decades earlier. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on the quality of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like No consensus. When presenting your argument, please cite current, relevant policy and guidelines and focus on the article and its sources, not other contributors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Sunter

James Sunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Don't see how this individual is notable enough for a page, both in the general sense and in the parameters for which clerics are notable. Much of the article is unreferenced, and some of the sources at the bottom are only brief mentions. One actually focuses on the son of the subject. Leonstojka (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - With all due respect to the hard-workings of Wikipedians who insist on adherence to all the Wikipedia dictates ... there's more to it when it comes to spiritual leaders. I've done a great many Hawaii articles on spiritual leaders. The ones that impress me with their Christian walk in life, are not the ones who necessarily made the headlines when alive. It's people like Alice Kahokuoluna and Father Damien who put their own safety aside to care for the helpless leprosy patients. The ones who don't impress me are the spiritual leaders who make the news, and hobnob with legislative leaders. Not to knock Wikipedia guidelines, but people putting their own lives and welfare on the line to serve others, just doesn't seem to arise in Wikipedia guidelines. — Maile (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I tend to agree with the nomination. This is a rather well-sourced biography of a religious person, but I'm not sure what the notability is... He built a school, ministered to the faithful, other routine things. I suppose it would all get reported on at the time, but it's all strictly local news reporting on what the pastor was up to that week. Oaktree b (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a lot of Wikipedia is like that. That's what makes it useful. Doug butler (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's wrong with this source, which appears to be an extensive full-column long story on his life in a major newspaper? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Linked five times in the article. Doug butler (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical question: when the deletionists have whittled the English WP down to 1 million articles class C and above, or 2 million mid-importance or higher, how much storage space will be saved ? Doug butler (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eze Harper

Eze Harper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV; all that came up was this transactional announcement. A possible redirect target is List of Barrow Raiders players. JTtheOG (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Participation-based criteria for athletes were deprecated two years ago. JTtheOG (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided Not really enough references but still something, notability if carrer is also somewhere in the middle. Mn1548 (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please present policy-based arguments for your opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of London Broncos players. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Wicks

Joel Wicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of London Broncos players as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this rugby league player. JTtheOG (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Participation-based criteria for athletes were deprecated two years ago. JTtheOG (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided Not really enough references but still something, notability if carrer is also somewhere in the middle. Mn1548 (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tony Curzon Price

Tony Curzon Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO because the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES are primary, including biographies and the like by related parties. No particular claim to notability is textually clear. JFHJr (㊟) 03:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is the one Telegraph article, but everything else that I find is non-independent. I find only a few academic articles and the citation counts are low (barely double and often single digits, one at 166 cites). Lamona (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Molloy

Jon Molloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. All I found were transactional announcements (1, 2, 3) and a routine injury update (1). There seem to be multiple redirect candidates (List of Wakefield Trinity players, List of Salford Red Devils players). JTtheOG (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Some non-routine coverage here. I'm a bit surprised I couldn't find more for someone who made nearly 50 Super League appearances. Perhaps someone can add more using offline sources, as a lot of websites unfortunately haven't kept archives during the time period he played in. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently soured in my opinion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There seem to be a few articles with more than trivial mention. Given the time period, I also suspect there may be additional sources out there that are not reflected by internet sources. At least weak support for keeping. – notwally (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet

Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:GNG because only insubstantial coverage is indicated in articles that are all topically about her spouse, or published by her own school. She fails WP:GNG today and is unlikely to garner more substantial coverage in the future due to her being so dead. JFHJr (㊟) 05:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, Poetry, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have added in reviews of two of her publications. She wrote under the name Elizabeth Young, which makes searching for discussions of her work a challenge. I suspect there is more coverage of her work, but it requires sifting through articles about similar people. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - I find reviews for multiple books. I also added back some of the text that had been removed prior to the AFD nomination. While this text needs citations (and is now marked as such), it is useful to know in order to find the sources needed. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep as meeting WP:BASIC. This is not an easy pass -- her books have a relatively low citation count but she has had an impact. Old London Churches seems to have been regarded as a significant work and has been cited quite a bit in the context of for conservation efforts received a number of reviews which are not available online. She got obituaries in the Independent and Telegraph which I think counts for a lot. Here are the sources I think taken together are sufficient:
  • this book review[17]
  • this obit in the Independent[18]
  • this obituary in the Telegraph [19]
  • minimal discussion about her in her husband's biography [20]
  • this obituary, albeit in a low-circulation paper[21]
  • this entry showing that her papers are now held under supervision of the UK national archives[22]
One note: immediately prior to bringing this AfD the nominator removed more than 4K of text from the article including removing her extensive biography. I'm not sure how that is justified - surely if the books exist they are sources, although whether they count for notability may be another matter. I wholly agree with @DaffodilOcean's decision to reinstate them, and to identify additional cites. Oblivy (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Dunn (defender)

Harry Dunn (defender) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm a bit unsure about this one, as he seemed to have a rather robust career, but it was entirely at the non-league, semi-pro level. There doesn't seem to be much of any WP:SIGCOV outside of this local newspaper coverage. I'd like to see what consensus is here, as it feels like a "delete" for me, but I'm curious what others think. Anwegmann (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Football figures whose playing and manager career is mostly confined to small clubs do not have exact material to support WP:GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Scarborough F.C. players where he should be added. GiantSnowman 14:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know, I don't think redirecting to the players article helps, seems to be an important figure for the club in the 1970s and 1980s, first as a player then as a manager. I'd prefer to keep, however if not, suggest a redirect to the club page Scarborough F.C. His name is mentioned four times on the page, twice as player of the year and twice as manager. As the content on the article is sourced, it maybe a good idea to merge some of the content. Deletion doesn't help anyone. Govvy (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a keep is a bit much for this player, but I'd be totally amenable to a merge or redirect, for sure. Anwegmann (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like delete, but out of respect to the previous relister who sought a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus, this should have one final relisting to allow for some additional discussion, any at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Williams (footballer, born 2004)

Morgan Williams (footballer, born 2004) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, as everything I could find is either South London local press or directly from club websites. Anwegmann (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 5 appearances as a professional with ongoing career Aren't we looking for WP:SIGCOV? The two sources you mention are routine coverage. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per whats on the article, sources above. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per @GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Fails GNG. I couldn't find any sigcov of him. The above sources are a routine match report and a routine transfer story. The "ongoing career" argument should officially go the way of NFOOTBALL. Articles are for things that pass GNG now not at some time possibly in the future. Dougal18 (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, of course you don't. But it's not particularly constructive to state that WP:GNG are met when so far nobody has indicated WP:SIGCOV exists. In my experience, articles often get deleted when the assertion "Satisfies WP:GNG" is not backed up. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. @Robby.is.on MaskedSinger (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify – The two articles linked by GiantSnowman here are routine coverage. Of the five sources in the article three are database entries, two are from AFC Wimbledon and Woking, clubs the player has played for. So far, we don't have anything close to WP:SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I considered closing as no consensus--without additional good arguments I think that this is where this will end up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The first source is a database, the second is an interview, the third is all of two sentences of routine transactional coverage, and the final two sources are more stats databases. The sources provided in this discussion are likewise just a few sentences about a couple of matches, and can hardly be called in depth or significant. Bottom line, there isn't any WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG in the article, and I don't see anything better elsewhere. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Webb

Dean Webb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet the notability guideline. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 21:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to the closing admin. I would like ask please that if by chance the consensus leans towards deletion, we look at redirecting the page to Ivor Kirchin, Basil Kirchin as he was a member of The Kirchin Band for a year, having replaced the featured singer Rory Blackwell in 1957. Webb stayed with the band for a year and I believe sang on at least two recordings. He was involved with both Ivor and Basil. This would also preserve the history. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's a couple of good articles in the The British Newspaper archive. Unfortunately its pay so you can read thing. There's also this article with his picture below,
    Disc, No. 67 Week ending May 16, 1959 - Page 7 THE BLACKSMITH WHO PREFERRED BEAT TO THE ANVIL CHORUS, Big break
    I haven't got time to comb through the other UK music trade magazines and a lot of the earlier ones can't be word searched. So it's a case of having to go through all the content of this often faded but thankfully preserved historical music info.
    I'm satisfied to call this a keep. Karl Twist (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as has reliable newspaper coverage as referenced in the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apoapsis Records

Apoapsis Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

article reads like an advertisement (fails WP:NOTADVERT), with an overreliance on primary sources, for a record label with only two artists signed (fails WP:INHERITORG). if any part of this article can be salvaged at all, it would work better as a part of either Vasileios Angelis or Apostolos Angelis (composer), or simply redirected to either of these two pages. Free Realist 9 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need ONE redirect. target article, a closer shouldn't be flipping a coin.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I noticed the article is nominated for deletion. While this article is one of my first contributions under this username, I've been a longtime Wikipedia editor committed to following notability guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability). The flagged concern regarding promotional content seems like a misunderstanding. My intent is always to provide a well-sourced and informative article about a notable or "worthy of notice" subject. Suggestions for improvement and collaboration to bring the article up to Wikipedia's standards are always welcome. Thank you all for your time and consideration. OrangedJuice (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still waiting for participants to decide on one Merge/Redirect target article. One of those suggested is actually a Redirect, not an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ultimately, I think what needs to happen before merging is for a referendum on the notability of the target musicians. This AfD should be tabled until that's decided. Chubbles (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam's Chicken

Sam's Chicken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From this IP editor, here:

After attempting to clean up the article (with resistance), it has instead become apparent that it's a pretty clear fail of WP:NCORP. The article currently has 3 sources: First, a primary report from a local government council about a small fine for illegal dumping of trash, shouldn't even be used, let alone establishes any kind of notability. Second, a Standard article about SCs being targeted in attacks for ethnic reasons isn't really about the company. It might belong on some kind of "Sinhalese-Tamil relations in London" article or something, but it doesn't help establish notability of the company itself. Last, a Guardian article about SC along with other fast food chicken joints being investigated for poor worker treatment/conditions. This is certainly the best, but it's not enough on its own, and it doesn't go into any real depth about SC itself. I was able to find no more sourcing beyond the above, either. TL;DR, this is a small local fast food chain, and there just isn't enough about it to warrant an article.

Zanahary (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'I taste-tested KFC and Sam's and now I have a new fried chicken favourite'
WHAT THE CLUCK! FULL EXTENT OF SAM’S CHICKEN FOOD HYGIENE RATING REVEALED
Isle of Wight takeaway Sam's Chicken improves hygiene rating
CHICKEN LOVERS CLUCKING HAPPY AS SAM’S CHICKEN RE-OPENS
Bid to set up Essex's first Sam's Chicken in Southend
SAM’S CHICKEN BRINGS FRESH TASTE TO RYDE
Food in Herts: Five chicken shops in Hertfordshire that are 'better' than KFC
Does Harrow have too many chicken shops?
Kettering piri piri chicken shop plan gets green light despite nearby competitors' pleas

Hope that is enough. More available. Edwardx (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Agree with Edwardx and thankyou for doing that reasearch. Does enough to satisfy notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the sources above. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input on the sources presented by Edwardx?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a rough consensus although the discussion is trending towards Delete until new sources were brought into the discussion. An assessment of them would be helpful. Looking at this article, it has been the subject of numerous edit wars for some reason.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Some questionable (no Wiki link since local) additional sources but the County Press and The Guardian are notable. DareshMohan (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not enough independent coverage. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reviews of individual outlets is not a basis for establishing notability of the company. If it was, it would appear in NCORP guidelines. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. HighKing++ 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Najma Akhtar

Najma Akhtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Dowrylauds (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Applied and presented sources fail GNG, ANYBIO and NMUSIC; nothing approaching RS covering this BLP. BusterD (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend keeping. Career cut short but a fine actor.

Neil Fitzwiliam

Neil Fitzwiliam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage and not enough major roles. SL93 (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/England&oldid=1229993903"