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

Aimee Aikenhead

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

Redirect to List of Jersey women Twenty20 International cricketers as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cricket, and United Kingdom. JTtheOG (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has sources including BBC, Jersey Evening Post and ESPNcricinfo and links to several other pages on Wikipedia. The subject is a player for the Jersey women's national cricket team with 11 caps including in a T20 world cup qualifying tournament. What is the problem with it? Shrug02 (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrug02: How many of those include significant coverage of the subject? The number of caps and/or competitions played are not relevant. JTtheOG (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more information and sources as discussed with you. I was trying to create a complete set of pages for the Jersey women's cricket team excluding those players who have done nothing of note of course. Coverage of places such as Jersey is sparse so sources are often hard to come by. This does not make the subject matter irrelevant. I see you have now nominated a second of my pages for deleting and no doubt the rest will follow. I don't understand all these terms and abbreviations being used and I can't imagine I'll save them from deleting. I have worked for many hours to create these pages and in good faith. I will now stop. Thank you. Shrug02 (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People in the line of succession to the British throne

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

Line of succession to the British throne was merged and redirected in 2015 as a result of Talk:Succession to the British throne/Archive 2. This page is reliant on a single source that does not in fact list people in line. It lists descendants of the Electress Sophia who would be in line if they renounced their own religion, became Anglicans and adopted British nationality. In reality, for anyone so far down the line to inherit the British throne, the world would have had to endure a catastrophic disaster of such monumental proportions that it is extremely unlikely that the monarchy would exist. This content is not suitable for an encyclopedia because it is one wikipedian's selection of whom they consider to be the notable descendants of Sophia that is not representative of a wide-base of scholarly sources. DrKay (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. DrKay (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is nothing more than WP:OR. Keivan.f^Talk 12:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All your concerns would be satisfied by changing the title to List of living descendants of Sophia of Hanover. Also, the selection of living people is formulaic and not subjective, and thus does not fall under WP:OR, and further sources can certainly be added to refine the listing; these are reasons to improve the article, not delete it.

Also, the 2015 discussion is not relevant; the merged article only contained the short list of descendants of George V, and the outcome of the discussion was in fact to keep text referring to Reitwiesner's list. Lastly, your nomination itself is factually inaccurate: they need to be Protestant and not specifically Anglican, and I don't think there's a legal provision that they be British citizens; George I was certainly not when he ascended. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense. George was naturalized by the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 before his accession. DrKay (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay: I'll strike that part, but the other arguments stand. Do you have a source to support that, under current law, the monarch needs to be specifically Anglican and a British citizen to be in the line of succession? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with anything? Are you saying that we must maintain a list of people that has been put together randomly just because one of them that is non-British or non-Anglican might have a chance of ascending the throne of the United Kingdom? Well, that requires the mass elimination of the first 60 in line which is unlikely to happen any time soon. The whole list is nothing more than hypothetical cruft. Keivan.f^Talk 02:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing hypothetical about this. The list of people is firmly set in law. Whether it will ever actually be used is irrelevant to that. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is hypothetical when we don't have secondary sources grouping all these people together based on what their place could have been if the line of succession were to be extended that far. At the moment it's just a genealogical entry and WP:SYNTHESIS. Keivan.f^Talk 06:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Keivan.f. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kendrick

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced article about an actor (also known as Adamo Palladino), and added two sources. One is a passing mention and the other is an interview with a family member in the local paper. I don't believe he meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Equinox (Amiga demogroup)

AfDs for this article:

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. Surprisingly, there isn't significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu].

I am also bundling the disk magazine European Top 20 published by Equinox in this nomination. toweli (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. toweli (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise Miles

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find their website on ROL Cruises and a few links to travel companies that offer this reward program. Noting for notability found; the source analysis in the nom is spot-on. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I could not find significant coverage in my searches for sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St David's School, Purley

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. 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]

Jonathan Charles

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Radio, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have now added the archive of his BBC profile, but don't think that changes notability status. Tacyarg (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macleod Group

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Searches are also not yielding anything. Wikilover3509 (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Variable State

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United Kingdom. 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]

Ok, but we should still evaluate the studio's notability independently which only Zx has really done so far. The political accusations are undue but I think the the creator is still acting in good faith overall. In any case, some WP:ATD would seem easily applicable given the established game articles. Maybe my nomination was partially because the article doesn't appear in a good state. The GamesIndustry.biz feature is significant (was hard to tell with all the sources about specific game development) and the Develop studio nomination might signify recurring coverage. I hope this in retrospect somewhat bold nomination helps clarify how "game studio biography"-like articles are evaluated. IgelRM (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stated in my message that "I got the feeling that this topic wasn't notable." My stance on this companies notability was separately assessed. I'll agree with you on GamesIndustry.biz being significant, but one source isn't enough. λ NegativeMP1 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LNER Class Y11

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

Article tagged as unsourced, and indeed is unsourced, since 2015. Propose merging into another suitable article, as this doesn't appear to meet notability requirements - a search doesn't yield any reliable sources. Danners430 (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Danners430 (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources don't need to be online (and did you check the LNER Encyclopedia link?). I'm not at home right now, but I'm certain that there is information in several books, such as Boddy, M. G.; Fry, E. V.; Hennigan, W.; Hoole, Ken; Yeadon, W. B. (November 1988). Fry, E. V. (ed.). Locomotives of the L.N.E.R., part 10A: Departmental Stock, Locomotive Sheds, Boiler and Tender Numbering. Lincoln: RCTS. ISBN 0-901115-65-7.. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If those are sources, then perfect - makes perfect sense to have them! Unfortunately I don’t have access to them, nor did I know of their existence… and they weren’t in the article anywhere hence the AfD. Would make sense to add them as sources and close this! Danners430 (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With an existing article, Motor Rail, this article is not notable enough, furthermore, it doesn't have any sources. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources. Obscure and small in number doesn't mean non-notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Live (British TV program)

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

This article was created in 2009 by a user who hasn't edited since then. According the article itself, it was a two hour long show that ran from 2005 to 2011. A WP:BEFORE search would appear to indicate some questions about whether this purported Sky News show actually ever happened. WP:NTV would appear to be applicable here. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Foxhound Association

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

WP:PROD removed by IP on grounds that "‎IFA is currently very important to secure the Foxhound as a breed in the current fight against the Labor manifesto for this July UK election". Struggling to find evidence this organisation even exists. It certainly has nothing to meet WP:NORG. AusLondonder (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Australia, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not one gnews hit. Fails GNG completely. LibStar (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with English Foxhound: The group is probably worth a paragraph or two in the article about the breed of dog it promotes. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the references generally don't mention the group. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to English Foxhound per ATD and CHEAP. The subject is mentioned at the target so delete is off the table. Not convinced more of this content is needed at the target, also given valid concerns by the delete sayers, so merge isn't the correct resolution either. Hence this defaults to redirect. gidonb (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is, to be blunt, nothing to merge, and nothing to suggest that mentioning it in the breed article would be WP:DUE. The main evidence we have for its existence is an entry in the French associations register [1] (which is obliquely referenced by the third party listing in the article). There is also a brief mention at a French hunting website which states the organisation intended to run events in 2016 [2]; the fact there is zero coverage of this suggests that this organisation exists on paper at best. At this time does not come close to meeting GNG or NORG. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources I could find that covered it was this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6577333/German-prince-moved-UK-marry-Englishwoman-killed-falling-horse-race.html and I doubt a Dailymail exception will occur here. There is supposed to be a mention in this: https://www.scribd.com/document/367228678/TField-June-2016-pdf but I cannot find it. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thus Delete and RM the mention at English Foxhound, if there is no secondary coverage of the organisation then what is presented has to be original research, and is also undue. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary International Initiative

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

This article has existed as a stub since 2007. It is yet another obscure Trotskyist international; this one didn't even last longer than a year before splitting! Its two cited sources are both (clearly unreliable) articles published by other obscure Trotskyist Internationals (the International Bolshevik Tendency and League for the Fifth International). A search on Google Scholar yields only two results, both of which are false positives.[3] I tried looking for it in one Robert J. Alexander's books, but only found a passing mention in a section about the International Marxist Group, without any real detail whatsoever.

As it doesn't appear to have any significant coverage in reliable sources, I don't think it meets our notability guidelines for organizations and I'm recommending it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Germany, and United Kingdom. Grnrchst (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Yue🌙 01:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trotskyist International Liaison Committee

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

This is yet another obscure Trotskyist international with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the two currently cited sources, one is from the organisation's own successor's publication; the other is Robert Alexander's book, which only mentions the TILC briefly in passing, in a section about the Revolutionary Workers League. A search on Google Scholar yields only two results: a mirror of a Swedish Wikipedia page, and a Czech PhD thesis, which only references it once it in a long list of Trotskyist internationals.[4]

As this doesn't appear to meet our guidelines on the notability of organizations, I recommend this article be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Yue🌙 01:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Choice

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

BBC Three was BBC Choice until 2003 Coddlebean (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coddlebean (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Coddlebean, I don't understand your deletion rationale. Can you explain why we should delete the BBC Choice page? Toughpigs (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tv channel bbc three's original name was bbc choice Coddlebean (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Why is that a reason to delete this page? Toughpigs (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The main problem I have with the article is that all of the sources given are to the BBC. If some decent independent secondary sources can be added then OK. Athel cb (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a cursory view of Google Scholar shows this appears to have received non-BBC coverage. If a detailed review proves that insufficient and no other independent RS'es are identified, then merge to BBC three. Jclemens (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: The nominator has not provided any rationale for deletion; for all that I understand, it might actually be a request to merge, or even an edit request. This should be closed as keep, with the opportunity to reopen it with a proper deletion rationale. Toughpigs (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lodge

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added five more references to the point where I believe it passes WP:GNG, and I believe further references could be found to expand further. His role in shaping an international regulatory framework for deep sea mining seems significant. Uhooep (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carried Away (Ooberman album)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, United Kingdom, and England. toweli (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ooberman per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ooberman § Discography unless more/better turns up at WP:Library. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Parker (police officer)

(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 [5]. A google books search focused on "Edward Parker" and "Special Branch" does identify a number of hits ([6]). There is potential for meeting notability guidelines therefore as an WP:ATD I suggest moving to draftspace for incubation. ResonantDis_tortion 10:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning toward delete based on discussion so far, but at least a little more discussion would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mint Velvet

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable clothing brand. Most coverage discussing the brand is actually coverage of its founder, Liz Houghton. In a brief search I found only two detailed writeups: this piece in Vogue which reads like a press release, and this article indicating the brand was acquired by another company in 2019. What little content is here could easily be merged to Liz Houghton. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenstein (film)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Coverage is limited to promotional announcements of upcoming screenings in a local paper ([7]), awards published by non-notable film festivals and primary sources. Rotten Tomatoes lists no critics' reviews; searching online, I was able to find only this, which is an unreliable one-man blog. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: It could have been redirected to the director with the local source mentioned above but....the nominator just moved their page to DRAFTspace five minutes before nominating their films....so no choice, if we don't want to editwar and make this very confusing...let's DRAFTitfy this and maybe users can make one or two or three decent pages with redirects and merge of content. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even taken all together none of the sources really seem viable for writing either an article about the director or the films. The totality of coverage in independent sources across the articles is the local paper announcement and a review of another film in a maybe-reliable indie source ([8]). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe, I don't know. But since you draftified the article on the director, I think we should draftify this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 English Channel disaster

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

The article concerns a single incident of the ongoing English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present) and does not need to have its own article. Firsttwintop (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, France, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (at least for now) - I could be wrong but it being the most deadly of these reported incidents makes it notable right? Maybe in the future if (heaven forbid) something else happens that may not ring true but right now it is. 2406:5A00:CC0A:9200:F885:F46D:3F46:5787 (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main article notes the incident properly: "On 24 November, the deadliest incident on record occurred. An inflatable dinghy carrying 30 migrants capsized while attempting to reach the UK, resulting in 27 deaths and one person missing. The victims included a pregnant woman and three children.". It would therefore fortify the request for it to be deleted simply because it lacks notability and it is not news. It is not appropriate in the context of the main article to create a standalone article for this one incident. Firsttwintop (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). This information isn't useless, but it belongs in the article about the main subject. There's no reason to split off random pieces of the topic into their own articles. Firsttwintop, did you create an account just to nominate it for deletion? There's no rule against that, but it's unusual. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information is already on the article, but I support the gist of the proposal. Firsttwintop (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 27 is a significant number of deaths. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. As an aside, it's interesting that this nomination (originally a PROD) was one of this editor's first edits. How did you even know about AFDs?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. This appears to be a well-referenced and not-insignificant disaster. BD2412 T 00:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The references are more than adequate to justify keeping this disaster and its consequences as a separate article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). The article is one separate event of a series of migrant crossings that have been going on for years. It may be overtaken in the future by a higher number of deaths. There is no reason for individual events of this series of migrant crossings to have their own page when they can be properly accommodated in English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). Mariawest1965 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This incident is notable not just from the large loss of life, but also because the level of public interest in that led both to the revelations about how the boat traffic was being treated by "rescue" services, and to some political/policy changes. That meets WP:EVENT and needs the more detailed record that this generally-well-referenced article provides, rather than shoe-horning just a brief summary into the main article. - Davidships (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present): the event is just another event of the migrant crossings, not justifying the separation of the single event from the main article, and could possibly be displaced as being the most deaths in migrant crossings in the future. MonsterRacer1 (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MonsterRacer1, how did you find this AFD on your first edit? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading the article and saw that it had been nominated for deletion; then I read the main article and found the information on the main article too, so I thought I would join in the discussion. MonsterRacer1 (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Crofts

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Orange sticker (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 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]

Romy Tiongco

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

The article does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Philippines, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the two programmes on the BBC all about him and the first of these and its report his on him were what led me to start this page and think him notable enough - perhaps via general notability rather than as a politician per se. A political activist, NGO worker and then politician (Msrasnw (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment - maybe you should find more sources, only 2 out of the 7 sources work.
TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are 2 "working" sources, that should be enough for WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources is a video source which does not work anymore, is one source okay? TheNuggeteer (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our "policy" on this is WP:LINKROT, and it being dead should not be taken against the article, more so if the reference is more than a decade old.

So no, your premise of this article having just one source doesn't hold. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a WP:BEFORE search outside of the sources in the article and can't find anything which suggests to me that the article passes WP:GNG. The non-working links do not necessarily suggest there was secondary coverage of him, either - the magazine just has a wordpress site and the BBC radio bit is an interview, which are not secondary. SportingFlyer T·C 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:26, 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!} 21:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simpasture railway station

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Sadly, this now-gone depot was only notable at a local level. TH1980 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It existed at one point and is documented to have. Why not accept it was once around when ROF Aycliffe existed. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:26, 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) 17:05, 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) 14:20, 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 around when ROF Aycliffe existed. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:26, 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. You don't get to ignore community consensus just because it's your article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:32, 17 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]

Redirect to Clarence Railway per nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It existed DragonofBatley (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:IDHT is strong with you, train stations are not notable solely for having once existed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P. Off DragonofBatley (talk) 20:43, 17 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]

British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives

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

Wholly unsourced article since 2009 Danners430 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Danners430 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Danners430, were you aware that there isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources? Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am aware. However, if you continue reading through that guideline, you’ll find more info - specifically regarding whether editors can find sources elsewhere. I’ve done a search through sources that I know of, and through search engines, and can’t find any sources whatsoever. As per that guideline, that seriously casts into question the notability of the article. Danners430 (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is contextless data with no indication of importance or discussion as a group in secondary sources; as such, it fails WP:NLIST. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a book source which I think is enough to establish the topic's notability. Smith, Paul; Smith, Shirley (2014). British Rail departmental locomotives 1948-1968 : includes depots and stabling points. Hersham: Ian Allan Publishing. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-7110-3800-4. OCLC 897871236. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. These statistics are not given any context or meaning. Eastmain above fails to distinguish between departmental locomotives as a whole (we already have British Rail departmental locomotives) and eastern region departmental locomotives. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there is a whole chapter devoted to this subject in volume 10A of Locomotives of the LNER. I have added this source as a reference to the article, along with one for each main section. I don't mind expanding it to one citation for each loco, but it a fair amount of work, and it would be a waste of my time is the article is deleted...

The source also states the location the locos were used at.

This is also part of a series of three articles – the second covers the Southern Region and the third every other region. — Iain Bell (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a series? These are just lists, and British Rail departmental locomotives could easily hold the entire contents of this article if people think it's worth including in the encyclopedia. Splitting them up seems arbitrary and not particularly helpful. We don't need three articles where one would do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - First and foremost, I concur with Eastmain that sources exist to demonstrate notability, and two of these sources have been integrated into the article as of time of nomination. By definition, GNG is satisfied. Being said, looking at WP:NVEHICLE, this subject falls somewhere between the "type" and "subtype" categories in my view, and leans towards the "subtype" classification, falling under the "type" of British Rail departmental locomotives. Beyond functioning as a quasi-"list of" article, prose in this article focus predominantly on the history and numbering structure, which would substantively improve British Rail departmental locomotives. Ergo, I !vote that the article be merged and redirected to a subsection of that article. Ultimately, I will also cite ease of navigation as a factor to consider here. The linking between these articles, especially without the 'British railway locomotives and miscellany, 1948 to present' navbox on some mobile platforms, makes information unnecessarily segmented across articles. Condensing and combining content here seems the best course of action. Bgv. (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the two sources enough to establish notability? Are there more sources we are missing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: Although this information is sourced now, I don't think there is much point treating the Eastern region in a separate article (same for SR departmental locomotives, as far as I'm concerned.) — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail DHP1

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

Wholly unsourced article since 2009 Danners430 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: without sources. Nothing came up on Google. RolandSimon (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Danners430 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There just isn't anything written about this that I can find [9], a photo there, and [10], a magazine that won't open for me... I'd maybe merge this into the list of British locomotives, but it's unsourced regardless. I mean, the information came from somewhere, but we don't have a source identified... Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any evidence of SIGCOV, and no suitable redirect target seems to exist. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unfortunately, unless offline sourcing exists (which wouldn't surprise me). I found a couple of sources that were neither in-depth nor reliable which suggest that British Rail Class 17 (on which it was based) would make an appropriate merge target if we can verify the information. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge British Rail Class 17 or Clayton Equipment Company are the obvious places to look for a mention, but there isn't any there (the latter has a see also, the first has nothing). It's mentioned in the table at List of British Rail modern traction locomotive classes#Builders' demonstrators so that might also be a suitable merge target. Some more googling has found some things that prove existence and verify some of what is in the article:
  - [11] a primary sources, but it verifies it was a "Prototype 1500HP BoBo Diesel Hydraulic", the drawing contains a copyright date which might be useful but I can't read it.
  - [12] indicates that there is a lot more information available from the manufacturer, but being primary that would all speak to verifiability not notability.
  - [13] This copy of a Railways Illustrated article (see PDF page 3) has a small amount of information, and presumably counts as a secondary source.
  - [14] A review of this book indicates that it includes information about the DHP1, but as I don't have a copy I can't say too much.
  - [15] This forum post has some quotes from an article in Classic Diesels and Electrics magazine issue 3 (December 1997/January 1998) described elsewhere as "Major", it also notes that there was at least a drawing in Modern Locomotives Illustrated No 174. I've not been able to find either magazine online. However, combined with the number of models of it that exist, I'm satisified that notability is demonstrated. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  After thinking about this a bit more, I now think that Clayton Equipment Company would be the best place to merge this to as most of the sources frame it in the context the manufacturer, the relationship to Class 17 is limited and not only does the list article not really having anywhere great to put a section of prose it feels a bit undue to have that much detail about an individual entry. As for whether to merge or keep as a stand-alone article, I might be leaning towards the former but I'd not describe either as a clear preference at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is basically unverifiable. Even if it were conclusively proven to exist it would only merit a brief mention within the Class 17 article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any serious doubt that this existed and was based on the Class 17. I haven't found a reliable source that states this but the variety and nature of the unreliable ones I've found leaves me in no doubt. However we do need reliable sources, and while I would be surprised if such didn't exist they haven't been found yet. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this conclusively exists, a redirect wouldn't hurt, but the question is where do you redirect it to? I don't think this is mentioned in any other article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also my newer comment above, but there is a mention at List of British Rail modern traction locomotive classes#Builders' demonstrators. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This looks like a clear delete but additional sources were brought to the discussion yesterday and it would be nice to have them assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a single source provided to support the locomotive's existence. ADifferentMan (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a picture of it above in my link, but that's not helping notability. It exists. Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ADifferentMan I provided 5 sources above that prove it exists. It's less clear whether it is notable enough for a stand-alone article, but it's not a slam-dunk no (or yes) and existence is not in doubt. Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assessment of the additional sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I won't mark this as a vote, because I opened this discussion... going by the lack of engagement alone, I would be inclined to suggest this be closed as a Delete or Merge (as proposed by Thryduulf). We can't keep relisting the AFD forever... Danners430 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf's digging. It also has some coverage in Modern Railways of its time.

I wouldn't merge to the class 17 article because, despite the maker and cab similarities, they're very different locos. The engines are different (and there are twice as many) and the bogies are too, as the hydraulic has mechanical final drives rather than traction motors. Mostly the DHP1 would probably have avoided the 17's best known feature, its awful unreliability. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manx Aviation and Military Museum

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

Merge Fails to meet WP:GNG. Should be included in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castletown,_Isle_of_Man#Places_of_interest Wikilover3509 (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Castletown,_Isle_of_Man#Places_of_interest as a viable AtD. Star Mississippi 15:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, requests for article mergers should not be started at AfDs. A proposed merger nomination should've been the correct way to nominate this article since you are asking for a merge. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are some press references [16] [17] [18] and books [19] etc. There's too much content here, with the prospect of adding more, to merit the proposed merge elsewhere where this museum would then overly dominate the other article, in my opinion. Plus it's inclusion in Template:British Aviation Museums seems reasonable and would be less well achieved following a merge. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a museum run by volunteers, with scope over a self-governing territory, therefore we can assume WP:NONPROFIT applies. With the secondary sourcing both in the article and identified by @UkPaolo, I agree meets notability guidelines. Keep. ResonantDis_tortion 10:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No new comments since last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is notable. What's missing here is a lead paragraph to inform us how this got established, and what the museum's focus is. There's several categories of military museums around the world. Improve, don't delete. — Maile (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 02:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Castletown, Isle of Man#Places of interest as an alternative to deletion. Most sources referring to the article do not talk about the museum in depth, there is a lack of secondary sources as most sources are primary sources, and the linked book does not talk enough about the subject. So all in all, the sources do not justify the subject's notability. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Arguments divided between Merge and Keep, no support for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 21 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 merge‎ to 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. The Delete views carried more P&G weight than the Keep ones, but the proposed merger received enough support to get picked as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 16:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notional results of the 2019 United Kingdom general election by 2024 constituency

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

These are not official election results; they are projections by a pair of private researchers. As a result, this article appears to be WP:SPECULATION by presenting a single set of calculations as an alternative history. The article is based almost entirely on the researchers' spreadsheet or on the Sky News article written by one of the researchers. Per WP:NOPAGE, this topic can be adequately covered by the existing material at 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies: "In January 2024, professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher published detailed estimates of what the result would have been had the new boundaries been in place at the previous general election. This analysis shows the Conservatives would have won seven additional seats in 2019, with Labour losing two, the Liberal Democrats three and Plaid Cymru two." Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep

No, these are notional results used by BBC for the upcoming election, and notional results are an essential part when new boundaries are introduced in the UK. Thomediter (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're addressed in detail in 2024 United Kingdom general election and also at 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. Why do they need a WP:STANDALONE page? And why are there no other pages of notional results for other elections prior to a constituency boundary shift? Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're not adressed in enough detail, if the voting figures are missing, they still matter. Just because there is no page previously doesn't make the page irrelevant. There are numerous examples of this such there being a page about Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979, despite there being no page about Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 1977. Thomediter (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (which, just to be clear, is very strong too, but we don't need to specify that). This is a fork from 2024 United Kingdom general election. That page is the correct place for an encyclopaedic treatment of the matter. What is the case for pulling this out from that page? Only to give the polling excessive detail. Why is it useful? Because there is an election in a few weeks, and people in the UK are interested in the notional results following boundary changes. But... it won't have very much relevance at all once the election takes place. There is some possibility that some aspect of the prediction will be so interesting that people will write about it one day, but they haven't yet. No secondary sourcing supports the existence of this page and it is a very clear fail of the ten year test. It is also excessive detail for an encyclopaedic article. We should summarise that in prose and link to a source with the detail. This is, essentially, a kind of news reporting. It is not an encyclopaedic article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notional results will ALWAYS be relevant to compare how voters changed preference from 2019 to 2024. Again, I have to point out that a lot of news organizations uses these notional results for this purpose. Thomediter (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ten-year-test argument fails because it is already standard Wikipedia practice to use Thrasher+Rallings notionals from previous boundary reviews when calculating swings. Go to any constituency article and the swing in the 2010 results is the swing from the 2005 notionals- e.g. York Outer (UK Parliament constituency). This is well over ten years ago. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 10 year test asks whether this page, as a subject in its own right, will be relevant in 10 years. A parliamentary constituency article will be relevant in 10 years, and the 2024 general election article will be relevant in 10 years. This article forks out some projections and treats those as a subject in their own right, but they are not independently notable. The projection is of interest to pundits now, but it will only ever be independently notable if secondary sources in the future decide to treat the subject of these notional results, for some reason, separate from the election itself. That looks like the clearest of possible 10YT fails. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list has detailed data which will be used in the election coverage. This page is increasingly important with the upcoming general election. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is WP:NOTDATABASE, regardless of how important the data is. The data is discussed on two other pages and linked to from there for anyone who needs it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those that want to keep this: Are there any more sources? There's two decent enough articles talking about this, but it's marginal at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 02:51, 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!} 23:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards keep, but the article should be linked to those about the 2019 election, rather than the 2024 election. This is essentially an alternative version of the 2019 results. This article is sufficiently notable as it details the results of an election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:45, 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!} 04:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not understand the keep argument that it is an alternative version of the 2019 resuts. In that case it is a redundant fork, which is a WP:BADFORK and should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content fork that delves into far more detail than Wikipedia should go into for speculation on the next election. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's not speculation for the next election- it's an estimate of the results of the past election, which has been reported on by several major news outlets. These results will be generally used by both news organizations and Wikipedia (reflecting that use within reliable sources), for purposes such as reporting swing from 2019 to 2024 results by constituency. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notional election results are not "speculation" as psephology is a precise science. Moondragon21 (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>precise results under the new boundaries usually cannot be known as election results are not usually reported for subdivisions of constituencies. However, it is possible to estimate what the election results would have been by extrapolating from local election results for which more granular data is known

Sounds like speculation to me. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our position to speculate on what is considered "speculation", only to follow the practice of reliable sources. Almost all reliable sources treat the Thrasher+Rallings estimates as authoritative election results, for example, a Labour win of Beckenham and Penge in the upcoming election would be reported by the media as "Labour hold" rather than "Labour gain" thanks to Thrasher and Rallings having determined it to be notionally Labour in 2019. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Ideally this data would be incorporated into the individual constituency articles, rather than be in a separate list, but as long as this has not been done, it is useful to have these numbers on Wikipedia. The argument that thisis speculation is not sufficient. These numbers are used by pretty much all reliable sources covering the election even if they are only estimates. Gust Justice (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a merge argument? If the information should be on those articles, a merge close would keep the article until the merge has been performed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list/dataset is useful, but the data are available at reference number 2 in the article: spreadsheet download. I don't think Wikipedia needs to host a mirror of these data (WP:NOTDATABASE). Malinaccier (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. While I understand why we may want to cover this, I just don't see how this sort of thing would be best covered in a standalone article rather than within an article with broader scope. It is important to keep in mind that WP:NOPAGE notes that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. Those seeking deletion have argued that the topic is purely WP:SPECULATIVE or a form of alternate history, or alternatively that this is an inappropriate CFORK. Those in favor of keeping seem to argue that the data itself is valuable in some way, and should be presented on Wikipedia. I think that the data is valuable in the context of elections, and also that presenting this in its own article is worse than including it in a larger page with more context, such as could be achieved by upmerging this to my proposed target. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I would consider merge an acceptable AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:51, 21 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.

Others

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

England

Sean Taylor (singer-songwriter)

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

Doesn't meet WP:SINGER. Most references from same minor blog, some other interview on Google but all promotional. Orange sticker (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Orange sticker (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: This [20] and this [21] cover this individual. Not the best sourcing, but should be fine. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spartans Futsal Club

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability. Unable to locate independent reliable sources which discuss the subject in detail. C 679 07:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. C 679 07:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of York Swift Society

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

This is a non-notable student society with the article being hung on the non-notable event of Taylor Swift sending something or other to the society. Tagishsimon (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:INHERITORG This is, in essence, a celebrity fan club. It's not a new term for any fan club, but is more often used by British fan clubs. Movie stars and rock stars have had thses so-called "appreciation societies" for decades. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of Stonehenge

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

This event is fully covered in a short paragraph in the main Stonehenge article. The idea that something which happened yesterday and was cleaned up today with no lasting effects needs a whole article with the sweeping title 'Vandalism of Stonehenge' is unreasonable. Attempts to query the notability of this article~~, or to expand its scope to match the title,~~ have been rebuffed by the creator, which rather smacks of WP:OWN. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Just_Stop_Oil#2024: Per OP. Not independently notable when this is one among many Just Stop Oil protests. — Czello ^(music) 09:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is salvageable to Just Stop Oil per OP. WP:NEVENT is relevant. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge where appropriate and delete. Given the tabby choice of title I'm agnostic if we need even the redirect. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is appropriate to Just Stop Oil. I was tempted to nominate it myself, but thought for some reason we should wait one week or so when coverage inevitably stops. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With that said, I would be down to expand the scope to all acts of vandalism on Stonehenge. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 13:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the title is simply "Vandalism of Stonehenge" so this article could be used to cover all vandalism attempts on the monument. Otherwise Merge as above— Iadmc ♫^talk 11:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another stunt from them. No damage - not interesting. Secretlondon (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from creator — I absolutely did not say the scope couldn’t be expanded. In fact, my only comment regarding notability of the article was to note that LASTING could not be proven, and that a reassessment should occur in a week for notability. I am not going to !vote here, however, GenevieveDEon put words into my mouth in this WP:RAPID deletion attempt. I personally ignore the nomination reasoning by GenevieveDEon for that reason, however, all other comments (keep, merge, or delete) from other editors I will be looking at extensively and appreciate all the responses. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, I see that the large additions that were removed were from IP users trying to make the page be about the nearby road tunnel. That's obviously not appropriate in any case. But it does highlight a deeper problem: the concept of 'vandalism' is not culturally or politically neutral, and deciding what should be included or excluded from such a general article would be very difficult. As it stands, this article is still undue emphasis on a very short-lived and likely insignificant event. I also note that User:WeatherWriter tagged me with the 'climate change is a contentious subject' talk page template. This isn't about climate change. I have no interest in the purported subject matter of the protest. My position would be the same whatever the purpose of the protest - a separate article is unnecessary. And calling this "the vandalism of Stonehenge" was, is, and remains ludicrous. We're not here to elevate utterly trivial news stories into separate encyclopedic topics. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tag on your talk page is a required thing per WP:CTOPICS. This was a protest related to climate change and as such, first-alert topics are given to editors in the field of articles regarding climate change. Nothing directed towards you. You statement "This isn't about climate change" is absolutely false, since Just Stop Oil is a climate-change related organization. Please do not focus on the editor and focus on the content. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I regard it as rather targeted, because you didn't add the tag to the Vandalism of Stonehenge article itself when you created it, but only when you were tagging various places including my talk page, after I had made this nomination. And I'm not sure it's a sensible use of the contentious topics policy for you to create an unnecessary (and untagged) article about a very minor event somewhat connected with the contentious topic, and then start throwing around the template once someone challenges that creation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please strike the comment above as it does not pertain to the content of the article and is directly entirely at me. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's about how you handled the marking of the article in question, and related pages, as being related to a contentious topic only when it served to criticise this deletion discussion. My comment stands. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely obvious you're targeting us with those contentious topics alerts because we want your article merged away, WeatherWriter. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? CTOPIC notices are a required thing to do. As explained to GenevieveDEon at the administrators noticeboard. After the discussion was opened up there, all the accusations of OWNing, POV-pushing, and alleged targeting were taken back by GenevieveDEon. Please don't make the same mistake and accuse me. On a brief inspection, two minutes earlier, you removed the CTOPICs notice, which you are perfectly allowed to do (with indicates you acknowledged it). In your edit summary, you stated, "where did I edit an article under that?" Does that mean you do not consider this to be even slightly related to climate change? If the answer is yes, then you are not ready to edit in the CTOPICs area. Also, before you accuse me further that I am targetting because "we want your article merged away", you should do your homework and see that I too support merging it. Please strike the accusations and I would strike this entire comment insuit. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As above, you've only tagged the article for CTOPs when the discussion got heated. I'm not striking my comment, by the way. I stand by it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentatively telling people "you are not ready to edit in the CTOPICs area" in response to comment on their own WP:INAPPNOTE is itself highly inappropriate. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DELAY is also listed right above WP:RAPID. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Just Stop Oil#2024 as per above. For vandalism attempts other than the Just Stop Oil one, they would be more suitable for inclusion in the Stonehenge article. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expand Scope or Merge — The scope of the article should be expanded to cover all acts of vandalism to Stonehenge throughout history. If that cannot be agreed apon, then I support a complete merge (the entire article content) into Just Stop Oil. I would also encourage other editors to consider the scope expansion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "Vandalism of Stonehenge" suggests the article is about the concept of vandalism of Stonehenge and is confusing when it turns out to be about one specific incident. SystemPhantom (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and expand scope. There must have been similar incident etc in the past. Sourcs are good and notability fow now obvious.BabbaQ (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I regard that as an unncessary content fork - there's not enough on this in the main Stonehenge article to warrant it. When there is, then such a fork would be worth considering. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Incident appears to be a run of the mill publicity stunt with no long term significance specific to this event. Subject fails WP:LASTING, ~~WP:GEOSCOPE~~, WP:SENSATIONAL and the WP:10YT. Arguably this is a good example of why we should not rush to create articles about recent events. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While I appreciated the appearance of this entry when I was looking for more information on this breaking story, even then I was doubtful that it needed its own page. Also, it should be noted that I went to the Stonehenge page first, and either the incident hadn't been added yet or I somehow missed it, otherwise I wouldn't have gone to this page at all. RogueLoreBard (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I dispute your assessment Ad Orientem that this fails GEOSCOPE. I highly doubt the Associated Press, CNN, and Fox News are "local" sources around Stonehenge. The rest I do not have a direct disagreement with, but I wanted to go ahead and dispute the GEOSCOPE argument stated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. There was international coverage. Though it has dropped drastically even in the UK which does not bode well for WP:SUSTAINED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better to merge into Stonehenge surely? Rather than Just Stop Oil — Iadmc ♫^talk 15:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't originally propose a merge at all, because there's already a more-than-sufficient mention of it in the Stonehenge article itself. (See the discussion on the talk page there about whether that's warranted.) The Just Stop Oil article needs some work in any case because it's tending to WP:PROSELINE at the moment, but I don't feel qualified to say whether merging this page into it would help that issue. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Article can be mentioned at both Stonehenge and Don't Stop Oil, in due weight fashion. — Amakuru (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. No more notable than any of the other instances of immediately reversed vandalism from JSO. Sinclairian (talk) Sinclairian (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Stonehenge has been around 4,000 years and it'll be around 4,000 more. A feeble double act of environmental suffragettes taking 30 seconds to sprinkle orange flour over two of the stones doesn't warrant a mention in the main article, let alone its own. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LASTING and WP:SENSATIONAL. This event is already mentioned in the Just Stop Oil article, and doesn't appear to be a more thorough coverage than appears in the JSO article. SmittenGalaxy (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Numberguy6 (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Just Stop Oil article, probably a prosed version briefly mentioning the event and reactions alongside would fit enough in that case. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Just Stop Oil article. 2601:441:5180:9500:4DC1:AC55:2555:9733 (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Dictionary describes vandalism as "action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property." This protest was neither destructive nor damaging therefore the title is false. 2601:1C0:577F:4070:39DB:2AFE:E080:8893 (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Just another one of their stunts involving criminal behaviour, does not merit a standalone article above any of their other ones. Should be merged into the main Stop Oil article. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Do not leave a redirect to Just Stop Oil as the title is too broad. ✶Qux yz ✶ 16:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Just Stop Oil as it's one of their protests. This is Paul (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's already mention of it at Just Stop Oil article so nothing else sensible to merge. And oppose redirect since this isn't the only time in history that Stonehenge will have been vandalised. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kendrick

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced article about an actor (also known as Adamo Palladino), and added two sources. One is a passing mention and the other is an interview with a family member in the local paper. I don't believe he meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uri Gordon (anarchist)

(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 [22] 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]
Weak keep - I found the arguments by David Eppstein convincing.Whizkin (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep per WP:PROF#C1 as discussed by David. --hroest 17:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR by sources indicated above. gidonb (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise Miles

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find their website on ROL Cruises and a few links to travel companies that offer this reward program. Noting for notability found; the source analysis in the nom is spot-on. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I could not find significant coverage in my searches for sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St David's School, Purley

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. 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

(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[23])] 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",[24]. 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, [25]. 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, [26]. 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, [27] 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]

Thanks for responding to my questions. I'm not sure this is something that falls within a deletion category, other than the catch-all not suitable tag (which is pretty weak sauce IMHO). OK, it's a coatrack, and it has assertions that are questionably supported by citations, and the language is promotional (although many biographies paint a positive picture of a person, particularly if they are not notorious for some bad thing). In my opinion, these content issues need to be worked out on article pages and talk pages, and not at AfD.

I'm also troubled that much of what you describe is based on suspicions of the editors, their conduct and their motives, rather than identifying notability issues with the article. AfD is not for conduct issues either. Surely if someone is being disruptive or displaying ownership behavior, there's a conduct guideline that can be invoked at ANI. Also, no policy says someone can't be an SPA, and AFAIK there's no policy saying you can't edit while under a COI (policy says "discouraged" and "should" regarding COI, disclosure is "must" for paid editing). Oblivy (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t doubt that you are procedurally right, and that AfD isn’t the best venue to address a lot of this. I would say that I have tried both the Talkpage discussion route, getting mostly silence or obfuscation; and the conduct reporting route, again getting silence. My concern is that what I am quite certain we have in these articles are editors writing about themselves/their interests, without being at all transparent as to their connections to the article subjects. For me, that fundamentally conflicts with our aim of being a reliable encyclopaedia, and does a grave disservice to our readers. KJP1 (talk) 08:57, 20 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]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Leclair De Marco, Stéphanie (2007-10-01). "Jean-Christophe Iseux : Le mandarin de la Loire" [Jean-Christophe Iseux: The mandarin of the Loire]. Les Echos (in French). Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "A tout juste 40 ans, après une décennie passée en Chine, Jean-Christophe Iseux a décidé de revenir en France. Avec un projet en tête : faire de son château de la Loire un lieu de rencontre « personnel, élitiste et confidentiel, avec pas plus de 200 personnes ! » Sa cible ? Des leaders occidentaux et leurs homologues chinois et asiatiques. Ambitieux. Mais son excellente connaissance de la Chine et de ses gouvernants devrait lui permettre de réussir son projet. Son histoire d'amour avec l'empire du Milieu commence en 1996. Ingénieur géophysicien de formation, il oublie les sciences de la Terre pour celles de l'économie. Chercheur spécialisé dans la privatisation des entreprises d'Etat, passé par Oxford où, MBA en poche, il se concocte un remarquable carnet d'adresses, il devient le plus jeune représentant permanent aux Nations unies."
  From Google Translate: "At just 40 years old, after a decade spent in China, Jean-Christophe Iseux decided to return to France. With a project in mind: to make his Loire castle a “personal, elitist and confidential” meeting place, with no more than 200 people! » His target? Western leaders and their Chinese and Asian counterparts. Ambitious. But his excellent knowledge of China and its leaders should enable him to succeed in his project. His love affair with the Middle Kingdom began in 1996. A geophysicist engineer by training, he forgot Earth sciences for those of the economy. A researcher specializing in the privatisation of state enterprises, he went to Oxford where, with an MBA in hand, he built up a remarkable address book and became the youngest permanent representative to the United Nations."
2. Yu, Ying 余颖; Zhao, Xinyi 赵欣怡 (2021-09-22). Wu, Yidan 武一丹; Yu, Ying 余颖 (eds.). ""在英国重新发现中国：红色男爵的中国故事"讲座成功举办" ["Rediscovering China in the UK: The Red Baron's Chinese Story" Lecture Successfully Held]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "据介绍，易思男爵为法国贵族后裔，其家族与中国有深厚渊源。毕业于牛津大学坦普顿学院，曾任塞舌尔驻世贸组织代表、驻日内瓦裁军谈判会议代表、牛津大学管理学中心研究员、牛津大学赫特福德学院政策研究所中国研究中心主任等。从1997年起，易思男爵频繁赴华工作，先后担任清华大学访问学者、讲师、中国人民大学客座教授等，"
  From Google Translate: "According to reports, Baron Eise is a descendant of the French nobility, and his family has deep roots in China. He graduated from Templeton College, Oxford University, and has served as the Seychelles representative to the WTO, the representative to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, a researcher at the Oxford University Management Center, and the director of the China Research Center of the Hertford College Policy Institute, Oxford University. Since 1997, Baron Eise has frequently traveled to China for work, and has served as a visiting scholar and lecturer at Tsinghua University, and a visiting professor at Renmin University of China."
3. Kennedy, Maev (2016-06-13). "Red Baron's Jacobean Apethorpe Palace marks its rebirth with party". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "Just 18 months after Jean Christophe Iseux, Baron von Pfetten, spent £2.5m on a house with 48 bedrooms but no running water, he has decided to give a little party. ... Von Pfetten, a diplomat, Oxford academic and champion foxhound breeder, has been nicknamed “the Red Baron” for his years as an adviser to the Chinese government on everything from inward investment to Iran’s nuclear programme; the Chinese guests will include a government member and the head of an oil company."
4. Bruce, Rory Knight (2005-10-29). "Vive la différence! With full government support, hunting is thriving in France". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "I recently attended a weekend in Burgundy hosted by Jean Christophe Iseux, 37, a hunt master and special adviser to the Chinese government, who styles himself "The Red Baron". A fellow guest was Bob Hawke, the former trade unionist and Labour prime minister of Australia. ... said Iseux, referring to the pre-Revolutionary finery of dress that all hunts adopt. An aristocrat by birth, living in a family chateau near Macon, his great-uncle was a radical socialist MP for Burgundy. Oxford-educated Iseux believes that there is nothing incompatible about his love of la chasse and his work as a professor at the People's University of China in Beijing, an MP in the Chinese parliament and consultant to the Chinese government. ... Over the years, Iseux has hunted with an eclectic mixture of European ministers, aristocrats, writers, painters and even the female head of the French prison service."
5. Han, Baoyi (2019-06-14). "'Sweetener' strategy on trade dispute set to fail". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "... said Jean Christophe Iseux, a former European diplomat. ... Iseux came to China the first time in 1997 as a visiting professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing. He traveled all around China and did case studies of state-owned enterprise reform and issues relating to agriculture, rural areas, and rural residents in China. These issues became top priorities of China's reform and opening-up policy."
6. "Explainer: A glimpse of Chinese democracy through lens of 'two sessions'". China Daily. Xinhua News Agency. 2023-03-07. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "In 2001, a man with a pointy nose and a pair of sunken eyes arrived in northeast China's Changchun City. The man, with the name Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten, turned out to be the first ever non-Chinese member of the CPPCC. He was in Changchun not for travelling, but for attending its city-level CPPCC. "This was an amazing opportunity in 2001 to be invited by the then a mayor of Changchun to be a special invited member of CPPCC. But it was also a very important element of my learning curve on how the democratic system in China did work," said Pfetten, now president of the Institute for East-West Strategic Studies in Britain."
7. Hamid, Hamisah (2005-07-30). "'China wants Malaysia's main trade partner'". Business Times. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "Special adviser to central and local governments of China, Jean-Christophe Iseux, said ... Iseux, a Frenchman fluent in English and Mandarin, said many Malaysian investors in China have benefited from their investments. ... Iseux himself is the first and only Caucasian ever as Specially Invited Member of the Chinese Upper House of Parliament and has been ChangChun delegate of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) since December 2002. ... Iseux, who is currently an adviser on Foreign Economic Cooperation to the PCC central committee ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about the article's neutrality can be dealt with through editing as advised at Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems. Conflict of interest editing can be dealt with by following the advice at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to handle conflicts of interest. I don't think deletion is the right approach. Cunard (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep for failure to state a valid deletion rationale. "BLP Issues" does not represent such a rationale.

Nobody has said the article as it stands is inadequately sourced for WP:BASIC. On my review it does cite substantial coverage of this individual (although, as I point out above, there may be some verifiability issues and one of the claims to fame seems to be overstated). Once the additional sources identified by @Cunard are taken into consideration, a notability-based rationale is even harder to maintain.

@KJP1 has made a good argument that there are conduct issues related to the page. However, as they concede, this is not the place for such arguments. Oblivy (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if you see any BLP issues remove them, don't take it to AfD. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above, no reason for deletion on the typical deletion guidelines has been found.

However, on a separate note, I am curious if anyone has an actual (rather than potentially circular) source for his title being "Baron von Pfetten zu St. Mariakirchen". For instance, in a lot of press he is reported as Jean-Cristophe Iseux (no von Pfetten). I believe this may be his original name?

For instance, the Catholic Herald is very careful about his titling (not so for Lord Bamford), although the description for him seems perhaps self-sourced, here: https://catholicherald.co.uk/uk-catholic-leaders-of-today-2022-business-and-philanthropy/

And, the article on the noble family suggests the von Pfetten zu Mariakirchen line died out: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfetten

EPEAviator (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Charles

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Radio, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have now added the archive of his BBC profile, but don't think that changes notability status. Tacyarg (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Variable State

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United Kingdom. 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]

Ok, but we should still evaluate the studio's notability independently which only Zx has really done so far. The political accusations are undue but I think the the creator is still acting in good faith overall. In any case, some WP:ATD would seem easily applicable given the established game articles. Maybe my nomination was partially because the article doesn't appear in a good state. The GamesIndustry.biz feature is significant (was hard to tell with all the sources about specific game development) and the Develop studio nomination might signify recurring coverage. I hope this in retrospect somewhat bold nomination helps clarify how "game studio biography"-like articles are evaluated. IgelRM (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stated in my message that "I got the feeling that this topic wasn't notable." My stance on this companies notability was separately assessed. I'll agree with you on GamesIndustry.biz being significant, but one source isn't enough. λ NegativeMP1 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining

(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]

Keep per Mccapra and FuzzyMagma. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Sal2100 (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Joseph (politician)

(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~~ Delete per ~~WP:TOOSOON, and~~ nom. and others ~~above~~. Sal2100 (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Changing above !vote from "draftify" to "delete" per the rationale of Antonine below. Sal2100 (talk) 21:53, 20 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added five more references to the point where I believe it passes WP:GNG, and I believe further references could be found to expand further. His role in shaping an international regulatory framework for deep sea mining seems significant. Uhooep (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southport Sockman

(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]
it's very notable locally and across merseyside and lancashire 31.94.28.139 (talk) 12:49, 20 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 ([28]), a film produced in 2015/16 (Liverpool Echo, IMDb, Mirror), a 2017 book ([29]), a Connecticut radio show in 2020 ([30]), and a retrospective article in 2021 (Daily Record). Coverage could be better, but does appear to be much more than "breaking news". ResonantDis_tortion 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. ResonantDis_tortion 19:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dalleth

(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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that it doesn't meet WP:GNG and while the article has been changed since, I pointed out in the talk concerning the move that the references aren't great and point to WP:SYNTH. Orange sticker (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carried Away (Ooberman album)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, United Kingdom, and England. toweli (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ooberman per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ooberman § Discography unless more/better turns up at WP:Library. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Turnbull

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, England, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transfermrkt has him playing in one professional match in the EFL Trophy for Portsmouth vs Peterborough (source). Same matched that was referenced in the paywalled article. Tpd13 (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transfermarkt is not a reliable source, but one EFL Cup match still doesn't make up for the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman and Anwegmann: Some coverage: Shaw Network, Daily Herald (2), Portsmouth News (2). Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting these. I saw the first three when I was initially nominating the article. The problem with these is that they are focused almost entirely on his signing a professional contract and are very much local coverage—his hometown newspaper(s). This is hardly sustained coverage or, in my view at least, significant, meaningful coverage. The fact that the event these article cover happened, but then he went on to have a very brief career with no league appearances and no coverage at all makes me feel like it doesn’t/shouldn’t suffice for WP:SIGCOV. That said, I’m certainly open to other opinions on this. Thanks, again. Anwegmann (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No issues with 'local' news per se - but to analyse the sources: Shaw Network is paywalled but what is available is a bit routine; DH 1 looks OK; DH2 is routine; Portsmouth News 1 and 2 routine. It's essentially all 'look at this American who signed for an English soccer team'. Giant Snowman 17:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Square

(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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:02, 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!} 07:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Parker (police officer)

(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 [31]. A google books search focused on "Edward Parker" and "Special Branch" does identify a number of hits ([32]). There is potential for meeting notability guidelines therefore as an WP:ATD I suggest moving to draftspace for incubation. ResonantDis_tortion 10:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning toward delete based on discussion so far, but at least a little more discussion would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Rugby League Division Two

(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]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable competition. Fails WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system - Merge and Redirect to Midlands Rugby League. Mn1548 (talk) 16:45, 18 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

(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]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable competition. Fails WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system - Merge and Redirect to Midlands Rugby League. Mn1548 (talk) 16:45, 18 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

(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]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Non notable junior competition - ~~Delete~~. Mn1548 (talk) 16:47, 18 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

(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]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Open age league doesn't appear to exist anymore; only youth teams. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Can't find any sources but established how it fits into the British rugby league system - Open to keep only if sources can be found. Mn1548 (talk) 16:35, 18 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

(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]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Can't find any sources but established how it fits into the British rugby league system - Open to keep if sources can be found. Mn1548 (talk) 16:28, 18 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. [33] 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 [34]. Mn1548 (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland League

(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]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Can't find any sources nor establish how it fits into the British rugby league system - Delete. Mn1548 (talk) 16:27, 18 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 [35] [36] [37]. 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

(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]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yorkshire Men's League, which is effectively the successor competition to this league. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yorkshire Men's League appers to be the successor of the RLC Yorkshire Premier from what is written on the pages. Mn1548 (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Can't find any sources nor establish how it fits into the British rugby league system - ~~Delete~~. Mn1548 (talk) 16:31, 18 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]

InterTown Series

(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]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby league, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 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 Amateur competition with little to no coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:14, 21 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basanth Sadasivan

(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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.136.179 (talk) 7:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
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]
@Teddybrutus: I came across this article while using a semi-automated tool to review recent edits, and have no familiarity with whatever conflict you may be describing between yourself, JohnInDC, and Largoplazo. There is no "witch hunt", and you can see from my contribution history that I've not had any interaction with the page or with those editors pertaining to this page prior to nominating it for deletion. I'd recommend you focus on the page's serious issues rather than resorting to unfounded accusations. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "'Most beautiful mountain in the world' should be on your bucket list". 25 January 2024.
^ https://www.webintravel.com/turning-to-human-advice-on-travel-planning-in-the-age-of-ai-and-chatgpt/ one article
^ "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]
Delete there is little coverage of great significance, honestly. Article topic fails WP:BIO & WP:GNG. Zingarese talk · contribs (please mention me on reply; thanks!) 06:54, 20 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.

Nick Crofts

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Orange sticker (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 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]

Simpasture railway station

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Sadly, this now-gone depot was only notable at a local level. TH1980 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It existed at one point and is documented to have. Why not accept it was once around when ROF Aycliffe existed. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:26, 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) 17:05, 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) 14:20, 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 around when ROF Aycliffe existed. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:26, 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. You don't get to ignore community consensus just because it's your article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:32, 17 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]

Redirect to Clarence Railway per nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It existed DragonofBatley (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:IDHT is strong with you, train stations are not notable solely for having once existed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P. Off DragonofBatley (talk) 20:43, 17 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Christianity, England, and Australia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Canon Sunter was arguably the most important incumbent of St Paul's church (now repurposed), the third, and most central, Anglican church in Adelaide. His activities were regularly reported in Adelaide newspapers, rating over 1,000 mentions on Trove, and there may be more to find, as the illustration appears to be taken from an encyclopedia or church history. Doug butler (talk) 21:04, 8 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This isn't a debate about inclusionists vs. deletionists but just whether or not the sources that can be located can establish notability. Let's focus on that here before closing this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Of the included sources, I find a bare minimum of two instances of WP:SIGCOV: the Advertiser obit and a Quiz and Lantern column. I didn't find any other SIGCOV in a cursory BEFORE search but the baseline for WP:GNG is "multiple" so I suppose this qualifies. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eze Harper

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Representative footballer.Fleets (talk) 04:30, 7 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]

Tony Curzon Price

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, Politics, Economics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per The Telegraph (well beyond the Wikipedia:One hundred words suggestion for SIGCOV) and because we usually set the bar a little lower for sources that we might cite. (BTW, JFHJr, it's not necessary for an article to have a "particular claim to notability". Were you thinking about Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, which is a WP:CSD thing?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No particular claim to notability is in regards to finding a more specific criterion than GNG. Where are the multiple independent (unrelated to the subject) reliable sources providing significant coverage? JFHJr (㊟) 03:51, 10 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

(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

(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[38]
this obit in the Independent[39]
this obituary in the Telegraph [40]
minimal discussion about her in her husband's biography [41]
this obituary, albeit in a low-circulation paper[42]
this entry showing that her papers are now held under supervision of the UK national archives[43]

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)

(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. Giant Snowman 14:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Scarborough F.C. players where he should be added. Giant Snowman 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]

Seems to have been pretty prominent; though searching isn't helped by the fact that the same team had another prominent Harry Dunn at the same time... There's an interview here, and while an interview, it does note that "Harry became a legendary player for Scarborough Football Club. ... Harry Dunn, in what was a 22 year period from 1965 to 1986 you played over 900 games for Scarborough FC, you scored many goals and created many more. You had well over twice the number of appearances of any player in the Club’s history and well over three times the number of appearances by any local player. You have been described as: -the ever present Harry Dunn -competent, reliable and dependable -a calm presence on the field -a gentleman on and off the field – everything that was needed for a team captain to lead Scarborough Football Club to the success it enjoyed and particularly to those Wembley victories." Also some briefish pieces on him: [44] [45] [46] [47]. Kind of expected more... BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Williams (footballer, born 2004)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 5 appearances as a professional with ongoing career, there is coverage out there such as this and this, does not need deleting. Giant Snowman 14:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps drafitification? Anwegmann (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the absolute most. Giant Snowman 20:35, 3 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]

Keep - May not be much to the article but satisfies WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaskedSinger: Does it? Where is the WP:SIGCOV? Robby.is.on (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Robby.is.on, I didn't know I have to answer to you WP:BADGER? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:58, 11 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]

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

The result was keep‎. Deletion rationale should be more specific on which notability guideline the nominator believes this article subject fails. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Webb

(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]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Apostolos Angelis (composer). There's a clear consensus that the content doesn't qualify for a standalone article, but no clear choice as to the best redirect or merge target. Discussion about a better redirect target can continue on the target's Talk page, and any editor is welcome to merge any encyclopedic content into other pages. Owen× ☎ 17:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apoapsis Records

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Free Realist 9 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Greece and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a splendid merge candidate that did not need to come to AfD. I see no reason why a redlink would be a better solution. Chubbles (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, delete everything else crated by OrangedJuice for obvious self-promotion or public relations editing. Graywalls (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support deletion of the redirect if the artist founders are also found non-notable. Chubbles (talk) 00:12, 1 June 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]

@OrangedJuice Could you please clarify what you mean by "under this username"? Have you used other accounts before? Or were you previously an IP editor? In case you were not aware, there are fairly strict rules on when you can use multiple accounts. Toadspike [Talk] 11:56, 21 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]
Delete. It is hard to AGF when the creator's contributions make them look exactly like a single-purpose promotional account. The comment implying (ab)use of multiple accounts also worries me. That aside, this article has been horribly refbombed, and even so it is clear that there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the references are primary sources (links to the record label's website or songs on streaming platforms). The remaining sources are chart listings (no sigcov) and promotional press releases that clearly say "press release" at the top (not independent). This clearly fails the GNG, NCORP, and any other applicable notability guideline. Toadspike [Talk] 12:06, 21 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.

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

The result was Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Neil Fitzwiliam

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Television, and England. SL93 (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 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]

Delete: An article that doesnt meet WP:NACTOR. No major roles too and unverified sources. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend keeping. Career cut short but a fine actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:8600:e920:494d:5551:3317:934a (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a database for actors. All the content should go to https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0280666/. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 18 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.

Others

Northern Ireland

Others

Scotland

Ricco Diack

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Coverage is limited to routine game coverage, team-affiliated sources, and sports databases; there are no examples of independent WP:SIGCOV of this individual player. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added further sources, including an independent article which largely focuses on the subject, Ricco Diack. Additionally, this is a player that I am confident further material will be published on in the coming season. Partickthistle123 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Herald source is decent, but not enough on its own. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Per WP:TOOSOON. Could become notable in the medium term. Svartner (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Murphy (Scottish footballer)

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

The three Daily Record pieces referenced are all interview-heavy with very little WP:SIGCOV of the subject and my searches do not yield much else. Subject fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. JTtheOG (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: concur with @JTtheOG. It's too soon. Tkaras1 (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of independent, reliable sources raises concerns about the subject meeting WP:GNG. Waqar💬 19:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but if this person becomes notable, it should be titled as Jess Murphy (footballer) as no other titles with that name and profession exist yet. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 07:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Keenan

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

Fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, per nomination and comments. Easy delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Armstrong (footballer)

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

He fails GNG. A Google search found no sigcov just mentions in match reports. Dougal18 (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

del no sigcov. - Altenmann >talk 17:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Dodds

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

No evidence of notability for this footballer. The only sources are a pair of interviews with some routine coverage interspersed, as well as the BBC piece with two sentences of independent coverage. My searches did not yield much else. JTtheOG (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. JTtheOG (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

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} 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wales

Carreg yr Halen

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

Not enough significant coverage - I could only find this article; everything else is trivial mentions when discussing Menai Bridge. While its location is sourced, that doesn't make it notable, and the rest of the information in the article is unsourced and I can't find it anywhere else, so is probably original research. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 18:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wales and Islands. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 18:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a number of local sources exist and are quoted. The island marked one of the important ferry crossimg location of the Menai Strait before the suspension bridge was constructed. Meets the standard of WP:GEONATURAL. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:NATFEAT. - Altenmann >talk 19:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Menai Strait: seems to be the best idea... For the dozen or so lines of text now in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Menai Bridge. This little outcrop of rock clearly has more significance to the town than to the body of water, but that significance doesn't become notability because of WP:INHERITED. Claims of being an important crossing point would meet the mark if there was any verifiable sigcov of this fact, but I don't believe there has been. Doesn't meet GEOLAND, is a tiny tidal island in the middle of nowhere, insufficient content to be its own article. BrigadierG (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete It's not clear that the claims of the article are true. The cite for the ferry fails verification, and really I have to doubt the utility of a tiny, bare island in such a service. If we have to have something I would to go with the strait, but don't see a merger of a likely inaccurate article. Mangoe (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet and two different Merge target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh James (law firm)

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

Coverage in the sources given and my before search are routine for a law firm, such as opening new offices, new hires etc. The coverage in Legal 500 etc. applies to any law firm worth its salt, and I think it is being well established that appearing in a ranking doesn't make a company notable. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Wales. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in national newspapers and other sources. There is very extensive coverage in The Times. There is also coverage in The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, and The Guardian. There is also coverage in The Scotsman and Reuters and The Week. There is very extensive coverage in WalesOnline. There is very extensive coverage in many periodicals and news sources in Google News. There is a very large number of news and periodical articles that are entirely about this firm. The last time I checked, it is not routine for any British law firm to receive the exceptionally large volume of coverage this one has. That is not surprising because most British law firms are not as large as this one. It is or was the largest Welsh law firm: [48]. James500 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James500: There are 87 mentions of the firm in The Times, though one is not about the law firm. Which of those do you consider to be in depth, independent, secondary coverage? Four of those are articles by Alan Collins, a partner at the firm who is also a columnist at The Times, e.g. this. Most of the others are quotations. The article you linked to is four paragraphs about them, as part of 200 Best Law Firms 2019. Please cite some of the best examples? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was not aware of Alan Collins. It will take me time to do a write up of the available sources. I have a lot to do at the moment. However, we could sidestep this altogether by a page move to Lawyers in Wales, Legal profession in Wales, Legal sector in Wales, Law firms in Wales or something like that, followed by a rewrite. That would satisfy GNG beyond argument eg [49] and other sources, including more modern ones. James500 (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The search you ran does not bring up all the results in The Times that Google brings up. In the following, I shall confine my attention to The Times, as you requested. The following articles are profiles of Hugh James in The Times: [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]. These are entire periodical articles entirely about the firm. Such articles are in depth, secondary coverage. I am not aware of any notability guideline that requires more than four paragraphs of coverage. Whether they are independent would depend on whether Alan Collins had any influence over them. I do not know the answer to that question yet. The following articles are about the case of "Edwards on behalf of the Estate of the late Thomas Arthur Watkins (Respondent) v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors (Appellant)" in which the law firm Hugh James Ford Simey was sued for negligence: [55] [56]. The following article is about the internal affairs of the firm: [57]. There are also a lot of articles in The Times about litigation conducted by Hugh James on behalf of clients. For example, at one point they acted for 6,500 people in the Seroxat case, which has a lot of coverage everywhere. James500 (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis of multiple articles in general Wales business media, such as Business Live, or the general news outlet Wales Online [58], for example. Admittedly the article is currently poorly sourced but there is ample opportunity to add reliable citations if required. Sionk (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For input on the sources presented by James500.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Williams (footballer, born 2004)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 5 appearances as a professional with ongoing career, there is coverage out there such as this and this, does not need deleting. Giant Snowman 14:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps drafitification? Anwegmann (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the absolute most. Giant Snowman 20:35, 3 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]

Keep - May not be much to the article but satisfies WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaskedSinger: Does it? Where is the WP:SIGCOV? Robby.is.on (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Robby.is.on, I didn't know I have to answer to you WP:BADGER? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:58, 11 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]

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]

[1] "'Most beautiful mountain in the world' should be on your bucket list". 25 January 2024.

[2] ttps://www.webintravel.com/turning-to-human-advice-on-travel-planning-in-the-age-of-ai-and-chatgpt/ one article

[3] "Daily Cuts - Destination Everywhere".

[1]

[2]

[3]

United Kingdom

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

England

Others

Northern Ireland

Others

Scotland

Others

Wales

Others