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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to the United Kingdom.

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

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

United Kingdom[edit]

Event Supplier and Services Association[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. SL93 (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Akbar[edit]

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

Based on the previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Devil's Thumbprint, I still do not think this passes WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. There is not enough SIGCOV in RSs to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the nominator. - AlbeitPK (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montolieu Oliphant-Murray, 1st Viscount Elibank[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing the RS that show why this person would be considered notable against the inclusion criteria. He apparently has an painting in the National Gallery and entries in the directories of the peerage. But WP:NOTGENEOLOGY JMWt (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a member of the House of Lords, he is automatically notable. I have added the Hansard page for his appointment. He was an officer in the Royal Navy, but perhaps there were other reasons for his appointment as a Viscount. Also, his death was reported in the New York Times. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For others, it seems that the position in the House of Lords was hereditary and as far as I can discern from Hansard, this person never spoke in a debate. JMWt (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. Ingratis (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pre-reform peers were automatically members of the House of Lords, which was and is one of the Houses of Parliament, and so pass NPOL. Ingratis (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Viscount Elibank. This article is a genealogy permastub, in direct contradiction with WP:NOTGENEALOGY. While this individual does de jure pass NPOL, the lack of participation in any debate means that, de facto, he was not a member of the House of Lords. Saying he is "automatically notable" is the same type of argument that people would cling to when defending footballers who had 0 games played, but still passed WP:NFOOTBALL, which eventually doomed that SNG to death by RfC. I don't have access to the NYT obit, but I'm 80% sure it does not satisfy the significant coverage required by WP:BIO, and besides we'd need more than one source. Since the NPOL is an SNG, which explicitly allows for deletion (articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found), I think the GNG is a better metric for notability. I can at least find some debates where the 2nd Viscount was involved, but none for the first. I wouldn't vote delete or redirect on an active pre-reform Lord, but here we're very clearly lacking coverage. Pilaz (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the guideline you're looking for is WP:NOPAGE. Curbon7 (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject passes WP:NPOL as a member of the House of Lords, and thus is notable, but must still surpass the minimum requirements to maintain an article established at WP:NOPAGE. A cursory search on newspapers.com using this query returned a number of decent supplementary sources, including [1]. His obit here also helps fill in further biographical details. This obit contains some family info. British newspapers are generally poorly digitized on newspapers.com, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were more in other archives. There seems to be just enough to be sufficient. Curbon7 (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the additional biographical information is certainly welcome, sources 1 and 3 do not provide significant coverage of the subject and expand on the already present WP:NOTGENEALOGY problems of this article. Secondly, obituaries are primary sources, so keeping this article with only primary sources available goes directly against WP:PRIMARY #5 (which happens to be a policy). Notable people usually get significant coverage well after their death, so that's what I'd like to see to strike my !vote. Pilaz (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject passes WP:NPOL, so he is notable full stop. What we need is sourcing to expand on the article so it is not, as you say, a genealogy. These sources do that by providing key biographical details, such as the positions he held. These sources are not meant to provide WP:SIGCOV because the subject is already notable, they are meant to be supplementary sources to expand the article beyond the current genealogy perma-stub. Curbon7 (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this is one of the exceptions to the rule: someone who inherited a HoL seat and didn't participate in debates shouldn't be considered a politician. In the same way I don't think that every person appointed to national legislature inherits notability for the purposes of en.wiki. For example there are 3000 members of the National People's Congress and we do not assume every member meets the notability criteria there. JMWt (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Cousins[edit]

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

Young footballer played a few minutes in a cup game. Does not yet meet GNG, only gets passing mentions and routine coverage. The article in a club magazine isn't independent. Could also be draftified as an ATD. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 08:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, United Kingdom, and England. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 08:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature of England[edit]

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

This page is nearly entirely covered by the article British literature. Quoting from the lead of that article, "Anglo-Saxon (Old English) literature is included, [in this article] and there is some discussion of Latin and Anglo-Norman literature". The parts not talked about there are under the other articles listed in the main topic hatnotes of each of the proposed article's sections. The only one not mentioned here in British lit is Hebrew literature from England, which as well has its own separate article. Your average reader, when typing "literature of England", is likely looking for the literature of England (covered in the British lit article) that is in English. Based off this, I propose to blank and redirect and merge this article into the aforementioned British literature article. This is done with many other literature country articles, seen in literature of France, which redirects to French literature, and literature of Germany, Spain, etc. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, United Kingdom, and England. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - briefly my problem with almost all pages of the "literature of x place" is that the subject is impossibly broad and therefore inclusion/exclusion decisions are at the whim of editors. That said there clearly are academics writing about it such as 1 - which itself has a more interesting lede para than the WP page - so by the WP:GNG it appears to have the level of independent scholarly RS for inclusion. I'd like to hear other thoughts to help clarify in my own mind whether (or how) this page could/should be kept. JMWt (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that this is not a deletion (or redirect) proposal for English literature, which entirely covers any content from the article literature of England that may be about literature from England in English. I'm aware plenty of sources exist for English literature in English, as this is why we have the former article, but the proposed article is about literature in England mostly not in English, which, as said above, is covered by either British literature or the other main articles. A possible remedy to this is maybe changing the potential new redirect target of this page from British literature to English literature, although the latter is not exclusive to England itself and is about literature written in English as a whole. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it is you that are confused or me. As far as I'm concerned
English literature refers to literature in the English language

Literature of England refers to literature produced in England in any language.
I do not understand why you keep implying that the Literature of England must necessarily be in the English language nor why we should take your word for that. JMWt (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to imply that, more so that in an article about English literature (meaning any literature written in England) — literature of England — the only content in the article is about literature that is not in English. By saying this I'm not implying that the article should only be about English literature in English, rather that the English literature in English is already fully covered in the articles of English literature and British literature, and as the latter is particular to the British Isles and the former is not as you said, the content from Literature of England (the proposed article) should be either redirected or incorporated into British lit. The British lit article does not have to be about just literature from GB in English, as is already said in the lead of the article. Another alternative would be to make Literature of England a disambig page to show the different articles of various languages of literature from England, although for now I'm staying with my original argument. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not delete to either British literature or English literature, as appropriate. My understanding is that "English literature" is the literature of England, irrespective of what language it's written in; I presume the same is true of "British literature". Merger is the correct procedure if there's potentially useful material here, even if the contribution is minimal, or it turns out that everything is already included; in that case the article would still become a redirect to one of the relevant articles, but readers checking the article history would see that any relevant content here was reviewed and included in the target article before this became a redirect. The difference between merger and deletion is sometimes subtle, but still important. P Aculeius (talk 13:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original proposal was never to delete the article, as I said in the wording above, it is to blank and redirect the article. There is nothing to merge, and thus blanking and redirecting, (per WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R) is an acceptable means of dealing with sitations such as this, and again per those policies, it is advised that controversial blanks and redirects are discussed on AFD, as I did here, even if the goal is not deletion.

Also, remember that it is best practice to sign your talk page comments by adding four tildes at the end of a message. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking and redirecting is pretty much deletion—and this is "Articles for deletion", not "Articles for discussion". A merge doesn't necessarily involve moving things to other articles, but it ensures that editors know that the whole contents of an article—or anything useful in it—has been covered at the target article. Whether there's useful content isn't determined by whether it's duplicative of something better elsewhere. As I said, the distinction between merger and deletion is sometimes a subtle one, but important: if you just "blank and redirect" without indicating that the article was merged, editors might reasonably infer that no effort was made to ensure that the topic was fully covered at the target article or other appropriate places. And really no significant effort is required on anybody's part to do a merge in an instance where the contents are fully covered, so what's the objection?

Also, remember that any editor likely to comment on procedure probably knows how to sign a comment, and doesn't need an explanation of how to do it. It's easy enough to forget to type four tildes when editing one's own comments. P Aculeius (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see your point and I mostly agree, though it doesn't really seem right to call it a "merge" when no content is being merged into the new article, and incorporating parts of an existing article into a different one and then redirecting/deleting it is different than simply not incorporating any content and simply blanking and redirecting. We do seem to basically be on the same page though and I'll change the wording for not wanting to argue. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are American literature and Scottish literature articles, not sure why England would be an exception. There is overlap with British literature but the solution could be to move some of the content from there to English literature rather than have a British article primarily about England. Peter James (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golf Course News International[edit]

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

Looking through the sources, I'm not finding any evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this apparently defunct publication. Basically all of the coverage of the publication revolves around its disastrous raunchy 2006 rebrand. The only mainstream source I can find covering the publication in any detail is an article in the Independent from 2006 covering the rebrand, along with a very brief article in Press Gazette covering a hiring decision the same year, with other coverage of the rebrand in the niche Golf Business News also in 2006. There's also a 2006 public statement by ex publication head Trevor Ledger in Pitchcare regarding the rebrand. Either way, even if these niche golf sources counted, it still wouldn't pass WP:SUSTAINED due to all the sources being from 2006. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Sports, Golf, United Kingdom, and England. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earthsearch Mindwarp[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing any RS to consider against the inclusion criteria - not all BBC radio dramas are notable. WP:NOTEVERYTHING WP:NOTPLOT JMWt (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a very condensed version to author James Follett#Radio and redirect as WP:Alternative to deletion. Daranios (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James Follett#Radio, nothing to merge since the article is unreferenced. --Mika1h (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. 674 Squadron AAC[edit]

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

Insufficient independent references to prove notability. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge as it appears to be notable but heavily relies on a single sourcing from RAF. So It could have been a strong keep only if there were more sources for this article. Although merging in Royal Air Force is always an option. Based Kashmiri ^TALK 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to RAF Barkston Heath. The squadron has only existed there, so its history forms part of the history of the station. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current yeomanry units of the British Army[edit]

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

The scope of this list is the same as the scope of two sections of Yeomanry. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

88 (Arracan) Battery Royal Artillery[edit]

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

Article contains no references to prove notability and is about a company-sized unit PercyPigUK (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and Redirect to 4th Regiment Royal Artillery. Given its long history I'd be very surprised if there wasn't information out there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Design Masters series 4[edit]

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

Redirect to Interior Design Masters. Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Mostly original research. Dan arndt (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Dan arndt (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Design Masters series 5[edit]

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

Redirect to Interior Design Masters. Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Mostly original research. Dan arndt (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Dan arndt (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom, or Delete. No significant coverage, and so fails not only notability but verifiability. Draftified by nominator from NPP, then moved back to article space by originator without improvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Design Masters series 3[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Mostly original research. Dan arndt (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Dan arndt (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebra (charity)[edit]

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

The external links that are presumably used as references are not reliable, as they are either written by the organization or people connected with it, or barely have any information on it. Most of the sources that I can find also seem to be written by the organization or people connected with it.

Overall, there don't seem to be any independent sources with significant coverage. Ships & Space_(Edits) 02:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Psychiatry. Ships & Space_(Edits) 02:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Roberts (sailor)[edit]

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

BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth. The event they are primary known for does not have an article. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 02:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 15 May 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 6 Regiment Army Air Corps. ✗plicit 14:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. 675 (The Rifles) Squadron AAC[edit]

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

Insufficient references to prove notability. It is a small, company-sized unit. PercyPigUK (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Aviation. PercyPigUK (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps. Gavbadger (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to follow Gavbadger here: merge and redirect to 6 Regt. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps. Claire 26 (talk) 19:09, 14 May 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.

Whiteshield[edit]

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

Seems like a reasonably successful consulting company, but that doesn't seem to have translated into any coverage of the company in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Announcements of things they did are good and all, but they're not really the type of content that would meet our criteria for inclusion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, and United Kingdom. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page has a decent media coverage, has a general notability, cooperates with governments of various countries and with international organizations (such as the EBRD and UNESCO) thus responding to WP:GNG. Del Amol Banora (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep new sources added today are good, so the notability and coverage issues are not so strict. Cooperation with UNESCO, the European Bank for Reconstruction and other global institutions might help add more information and sources. --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page's sources still do not establish notability sufficiently. The references are from relatively minor sources or primary sources. "cooperating with governments of various countries and international organizations" is not in of itself a consideration for noteworthiness. A paperclip company could be said to "cooperate" with international governmental institutions by selling paperclips to them, but that does not make the paperclip company notable. CapnPhantasm (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel like I should clarify a little bit more. The firm's research has been actively used and publicly praised by UNESCO, with their book listed in the references and their chart included in the article. It's important to note that EBRD and UNESCO official websites shouldn't be considered primary sources or "minor". Additionally, some other media mention that the Whiteshield research was commissioned by the UN and the government of Kazakhstan. They are also mentioned on the official websites of UNIDO and UNDP and are quoted in other UN documents.--Del Amol Banora (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Del Amol Banora. Being cited works for Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and, in some very rare cases, the works themselves. It does not work for companies or organisations, the articles of which we require to be based on the independent analysis of reliable secondary sources. There needs to be stuff written by the UN (or any other source with a reputation for fact checking) in sufficient depth on which to actually base an article, for any of us to, well, actually write a policy compliant article. Any source lacking analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas (of the subject of the article) is, by definition in policy, WP:PRIMARY. Any source that has a relationship other than the "actually writing the article" part of things (including, but not limited to vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees) is generally not going to be considered independent by the applicable guidelines. Those independent, secondary sources are required to go into substantial depth in their analysis, which excludes routine announcements of ordinary business activities. ("routine announcements" being the ones that would accompany such activities most of the time) None of the sources available meet all four of the requirements, and believe me, I had looked quite extensively. (though I do not claim it exhaustive) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the casting votes, the subject seems notable and passes WP:ORGCRIT. MeltPees (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per GNG, added some additional sources, likely passed ORGCRIT --Assirian cat (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assirian cat, I see the two sources you add mention Whiteshield, in the context of quoting from one of their partners, but I don't see any content about Whiteshield. Can you confirm which of the sources you think provide WP:ORGDEPTH or even WP:SIGCOV? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes outnumber delete views so far, but what exactly is Whiteshield notable for?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Hobo[edit]

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

The company does not appear to be notable. I was not able to find any reliable source covering it beyond pass-by mentions in interviews. OceanHok (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. OceanHok (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unable to find anything like a suitable source to prove notability, and there are none among the feeble refs in the article. The thing looks like a confection worked up by a paid editor or employee of the company, all fluff and no substance. Way WP:TOOSOON for an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ordo Aurum Solis[edit]

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

Seems almost whole primary sources, thus seems to not pass wp:n Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astrology and Paranormal. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be found, in which case the article would, of course, need to be completely rewritten. Brunton (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which still might be best to nuke it for orbit and start from scratch? Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources that would indicate notability outside of the bubble built by a couple of authors. –Austronesier (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~Unsure~~ Weak Keep was thinking delete unless reliable sources can be found for this purported hermetic order. But maybe sources exist. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources exist that are not part of Llewelyn press after review. There are... not many... but they are sufficient not to warrant deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223: Such as? Here's the relevant Google Scholar search result:[2]. If you can present one or two independent RS among these for evaluation, that would be sufficient as a first step. –Austronesier (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The very first one is a non-Llewellyn book. [3] Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just about "non-Llewellyn". Have a look at the first page of the preview. Do you consider Kraft's book an independent and reliable source? –Austronesier (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an in-universe description of a magical tradition. Wikipedia doesn't care if it's true. Just if it's notable. I am not suggesting Wikipedia should treat these descriptions as being of actual effects of magical ritual. I am just suggesting this group of magic type people appears to meet the minimum standard for WP:GNG. Barely. Simonm223 (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And can't be used to establish notability. That needs to be done by third-party sources. Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't care if it's true. Sure, but Wikipedia cares if it's WP:DUE. That's an essential part of WP:GNG. –Austronesier (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article suffers from poor management and sourcing, but it is not a non-notable organization in its "field," arguably on par with the Ciceros' Golden Dawn order, the now-defunct Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn, the Crowleyan A∴A∴/OTO and the (also under-written) Fraternitas Rosae Crucis. It would give an incomplete picture for this org to not have its own page. I'd mentioned this before, but maybe I could give this article a real try at sourcing. As was suggested above, starting from scratch (but without deletion) might be the best option.

AnandaBliss (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its been tagged as needing this for over 10 years. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not cleanup. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is because wp:n applies, as does wp:fringe and wp:undue. Throwing out the rubbish is just what AFD is for. Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if it turns out there are sources, it would be better to restart from scratch given the state of the article. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some Google Scholar entries apparently exist. I have not reviewed yet. [4] Unsigned comment by Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with comment. As I write this article claims Ordo Aurum Solis was founded by George Stanton and Charles Kingold, names confirmed here in Encyclopedia.com. However, that encyclopedia doesn't say it was the Christian bishop George Stanton. It likely would have been a blasphemous scandal for him to do such a thing and the alleged founding is not and was never mentioned in bishop Stanton's Wikipedia biography. Stanton and Kingold are called "occultists" in another encyclopedia.com article [5]. KEEP because Ordo Aurum Solis qualifies for an entry in encyclopedia.com. 5Q5|^✉ 12:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I de-Wikified George Stanton as not being the Christian bishop but an occultist. An online search for "George Stanton" occultist confirms this. 5Q5|^✉ 09:43, 17 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!} 22:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Towler-Green[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and United Kingdom. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Capstick-Dale[edit]

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

Being the 316th wealthiest person does not guarantee notability. Subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Only two sources from the Evening Standard may establish notability, but one is an interview. All others are brief statements, mentions, a listing, and unreliable content. Toadette^Edit! 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, France, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 8 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!} 23:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EMR Regional[edit]

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

I can't see that there's any coverage of this line of services that is distinct from East Midlands Railway, nor do I think this is a good candidate for a WP:CFORK. The only additional content that exists here is a WP:DIRECTORY of every route this provider operates on. BrigadierG (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and United Kingdom. BrigadierG (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage of EMR Regional relates to its plans to refurbish its rolling stock, which seems to be smaller and older than that used by EMR Intercity. I found several references for refurbishment and added them to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the main scope of the page is to describe the routes its operating on. Because An article that is only about refurbishments of something is almost never allowed and can be placed on the relevant part of the article instead. Plus it is not titled refurbishment of the EMR fleet. It seems as though EMR are either brand new trains (class 810, due to enter within 12 months), sourcing newer trains (class 170, built 1998-2005) or in the process of refurbishment after it withdrew its HSTs, 153s, 156s and even the 180s. JuniperChill (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not only that, but please also note WP:REFBOMB. No more than three sources per sentence, plus I am not sure about the reliability of these sources. JuniperChill (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> Actually, the main scope of the page is to describe the routes its operating on.

Have you been familiar with the discourse surrounding similar subjects such as lists of airline destinations? I'm really loathe to have more of these kinds of big piles of information on Wikipedia without further context? There's moderate consensus (albeit several years old) that these things are generally not good bases for articles. BrigadierG (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are just reprints of press releases - replacing some of your trains is just a normal run-of-the-mill activity when you operate a train line. I'm not contesting that the operator itself is notable, just the idea that its two train services need separate articles of their own. See WP:ROTM BrigadierG (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Selective merge to East Midlands Railway. This article is little more than a timetable at present without any justification for being split from the East Midlands Railway article. Eastmain refbombing with press releases actually makes me more convinced this isn't a notable topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Selective merge with East Midlands Railway, this article seems to be copied/duplicated from that article. Any changes of rolling stock can easily be under headings in the table on the main article. Should the EMR article get long in the future, a split can be raised then. The refurbishment of trains is not exactly a notable reason for a separate article, if it were more than just a sub-brand, like a division or another company, then maybe the situation would be different. Otherwise the refurbishment of some trains can be largely just one sentence at EMR, as it is largely a minor routine event for train operators. Dank Jae 19:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Selective merge with East Midlands Railway - as already mentioned above, the article as it is is nothing more than a list of routes with little additional content; nothing that would be out of place in the main EMR article. Danners430 (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unzela Khan[edit]

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

It appears the subject doesn't meet the WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR, as their works don't seem noteworthy enough. The press coverage in WP:RS also not significant or in depth enough, so fails to meet WP:GNG. Does not satisfy WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Pakistan, and United Kingdom. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is not noteworthy.

Crosji (talk) 05:00, 4 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!} 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or better to be moved to the draft Kotebeet (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with the nominator. A British Muslim Awards recipient is already qualified for a Wikipedia entry per WP:ANYBIO and from the article was cited to a reliable source per WP:RS. Also, as a journalist of a notable newspaper or TV which she was for Huffpost give us assurance of passing WP:JOURNALIST. She also wrote a book which is notable enough to qualify WP:NAUTHOR. What's then needed for an article? Not being braid doesn't mean it came be a standalone article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @Saqib, @Crosji, and @Kotebeet for the argument per se. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I so saw so may PR but was able to get reliable ones. See here and here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, I'm curious about how she meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria simply for working at Huffpost. The policy doesn't say anything like this. Additionally, is writing just one book sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One book which is reviewed by reliable sources is considered as notable. But may not require a article. However, we usually have problem when journalists wrote about others as few or less writing about them, in other way, winning an award for such excellence in media is part of both ANYBIO and JOURNALISM. While these are additional criteria, the article generally meets our general notability guidelines where being cited to reliable sources, verifiable and significantly covered per WP:SIGCOV. Even as there isn't any fact for such, a redirect should have served better not only when she won a major award and a book mistake reviewed. Let's be truthful herein and ignore certain additional essays. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because the article raises concerns regarding its credibility due to several factors: 1) Excessive Referencing: With only six sentences, the presence of ten references seems disproportionate. This abundance of citations may suggest an attempt to over-validate the content rather than provide genuine support for the points made. 2) Questionable Contributor: The primary contributor, "User:Kotebeet," [contributed approximately 80% of the content], is no longer active on the platform. This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor.--Crosji (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crosji, you are wrong here. I disagree that an AFD process requires the author except in major cases like undisclosed WP:UPE or thereabout. I am asking you do look at the article by our process of inclusion; WP:GNG. If you have any issue with the creator, then face them. I can't find any argument you're making besides you vote says "not noteworthy". Meaning? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crosji, also there is no issue of WP:REFBOMB here. I don't seem to understand your statement This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor, when a creator doesn't require anything on whether to delete an article or keep them. However, this is a process and you can't vote twice. Do remove any of the votes. Thanks! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Davis[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. Co-founder of Rolex. Article is basically just tidbits of Rolex history with mentions of him. Half of the small amount of material in the article is Rolex history that doesn't even mention him. The same with sources; there are no sources on him much less GNG sources. I did a search with the same results. Rolex history with just mentions of him in that context. Article was prodded by others in October and de-prodded by creator. During NPP work I did a merge/redirect into Rolex (there was no real material to merge) and creator reversed that. I don't think that the creator understands wp:notability; I left a note on their talk page explaining that it's about coverage. North8000 (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This book: [6] might have something, but I don't have access to it. The two sources cited in the article don't seem to be RS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rolex. No notability independent of the company. Nothing in Internet Archive or newspapers.com beyond the basic fact of having founded the company with Wilsdorf. Jfire (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This reddit thread https://www.reddit.com/r/rolex/comments/gsj84t/why_is_there_so_little_information_on_rolex/ highlights the issue here. I think he's notable, there's just deliberately a lack of information on him. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wikipedia:Notable is mostly about having material to build an article from. North8000 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can a consensus be reached for redirecting to Rolex as Jfire proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by ITV[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NOTDIRECTORY/NOTTVGUIDE. List criteria is programming "that are either currently being broadcast or have previously been broadcast", Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide, current or historical. Fails NLIST, no independent reliable sources discuss this as a group. BEFORE found programing schedules, nothing more. List has grown so much is it hard to tell if any of it is original programming, BEFORE did not find sources showing original programming discussed as a group. // Timothy :: talk 07:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. — Maile (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RouteNote[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Out of the 9 sources in the article only 4 could have the potential to count towards NCORP, and out of the 4, I am not entirely satisfied with their independence. ([7][8][9][10]). This article appeared for me while doing WP:NPP and I wasn't comfortable accepting it and with the last AfD being no consensus, I thought I'd opt for the AfD route. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep weakly. Would prefer a redirect to some kind of article on music distributors but I couldn't find anything appropriate. In arriving at a view to keep, I have taken into account the sources found at the third AfD, but note that no one has accessed any of these paywalled reports and one of them has gone away. However, Highking's view there is worth careful consideration. Add to that the sources in the article. The 4 mentioned by the nom. do indeed have issues, although they are debatable/marginal. Additionally RouteNote gets mentioned in a number of books. E.g.^[1]^[2]^[3] And if this were some (still) unreleased video game[11] or something then that would be way more sourcing than anyone could dream of! But this is an NCORP AfD, and the problem with the sources lies in WP:CORPDEPTH. By that measure we need Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. The books provide coverage of the service (i.e. product) but not of the company. Even then, whether we have deep coverage is very debatable. Except for the analyst reports. They may well have exactly what is needed to write the article... but no one knows! On a strict reading of NCORP, we are not there. By any other measure, this is notable. I don't think deletion is a net positive for the encyclopaedia, so unless someone knows of where it could be redirected/merged, I think this one should be (reluctantly) kept. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Eriksson, Maria; Fleischer, Rasmus; Johansson, Anna; Snickars, Pelle; Vonderau, Patrick (2019). Spotify teardown: inside the black box of streaming music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262038904.
^ Chertkow, Randy; Feehan, Jason (4 September 2018). Making Money with Music: Generate Over 100 Revenue Streams, Grow Your Fan Base, and Thrive in Today's Music Environment. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 978-1-250-19209-7.
^ Sadler, Nick (4 July 2021). The Label Machine: How to Start, Run and Grow Your Own Independent Music Label. Velocity Press.

Schwein[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting as previous nomination did not attract any comment and soft deletion was not applicable. Non-notable band that only lasted one year; no sources found in English or German. Sources in Japanese linked on the page do not show WP:SIGCOV. Broc (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Japan, Germany, and United Kingdom. Broc (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should stay up. Per v, point 6, the group consists of several independently notable musicians. Weiqwbo (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comment above, but also if only because having this content in each of the individual artist pages would be redundant (which is probably the point of Wikipedia:Notability (music) #6) -- t_kiehne (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Were they big in Japan? Bearian (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – KMFDM's parallel project, I believe it has enough notability. Svartner (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep per Svartner. BD2412 T 18:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: While it is composed of notable bands, I am unable to find any significant coverage of this band or the albums. Almost all of the mentions I can find of it are just in interviews with Raymond Watts. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The entire article is an inference that notability is inherited (by participation in other bands). Nothing applied, presented, or found which meets direct detailing in reliable sources independent of the subject. BusterD (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability matters, we don't want to bloat the individual artists' pages.

The band operated mainly in Japan, or at least only performed live there so the problem with finding sources is that they would be in Japanese magazines of that time (more than twenty years ago). Which are one) hard to find nowadays, two) expensive to acquire when found, and, I suppose, three) wikipedia would knock them as sources since most of them would be featuring interviews with the band members and wikipedia considers this self-promotion (in my opinion that's not entirely relevant, if the publication is in a reputable magazine, it should count, since a reputable magazine wouldn't print about randos even if the randos paid. But what am I doing using logic here.)

Some scans of magazines can be found here:

https://tigerpal.dreamwidth.org/58976.html

https://tigerpal.dreamwidth.org/58387.html

https://tigerpal.dreamwidth.org/9790.html

Scans are probably the closest we can get to the magazines but we have to acknowledge that fans are more likely to want to preserve the musicians' own words over those of random reporters. Weiqwbo (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Higgledy House (via WP:PROD on 8 September 2023)

Redirects

Templates

England[edit]

Conor Collins[edit]

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

Although this biography has many references, is it actually notable? Does making art that gain media attention due to their provactive notions create sufficient notability? No inbound links. No awards. No wider coverage that I can see. Seaweed (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Politics, Sexuality and gender, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than enough good RS, 3, 4 and 6 are the first ones I pulled up and they're about this individual. I suppose GNG is met, I'm unsure if they meet artistic notability, but they've been talked about enough by others, so that we can also include them here in wiki under general notability. Call it a cultural ~~oddity~~ curiosity I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne Silva[edit]

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

Not sure if this biography is notable. No references. No pages linked. Never quite sure with artists where notability lies. Don't think so in this case. Seaweed (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Photography, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm guessing this is either an autobiography or other type of COI creation by a gallery that shows her work due to the entirely unsourced article containing many details about her. A WP:BEFORE search found a review of her work in Financial Times:[12], but almost everything else I have found so far seems to be gallery PR, social media, an interview[13] (primary source that doesn't count towards notability because no editorial content), a book review on F-stop magazine's blog,[14], database listings, press releases. I also found an online artist project for which she took the photos[15]. The Wikipedia Library found an in-depth article by TJ Demos in Photoworks Journal [16] (you might have to log into WP:LIB to read it). What seems to be missing are a track record of art reviews by critics or art historians, works in museum collections, so I don't think she meets NARTIST, but I think she may meet GNG. Holding off on !voting for now, as I'd like to hear feedback from others who edit in the visual arts/photography area. Netherzone (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Farley[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable broadcaster. SL93 (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England. SL93 (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bivesh Gurung[edit]

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

Footballer that does not appear to have played a full professional game. Sources are mostly local papers and match reports. Black Kite (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie D'Souza[edit]

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

Non-notable comedian; fails notability under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER. The vast majority of sources cited in this article are Q&A interview/podcast interviews and thus ineligible to count toward notability as primary sources. There are a handful of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in sources like this and two Chortle reviews for D'Souza's Fringe performances. We would need to see additional WP:SIGCOV for this to clear the bar, and a BEFORE search did not turn any up. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 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 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Dyer[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. None of the offices the subject occupies/occupied can make them inherently notable under NPOL. GNG is not passable as there are insufficient sources. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Cousins[edit]

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

Young footballer played a few minutes in a cup game. Does not yet meet GNG, only gets passing mentions and routine coverage. The article in a club magazine isn't independent. Could also be draftified as an ATD. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 08:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, United Kingdom, and England. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 08:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Wells[edit]

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

I have been unable to find sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. The single source cited in the article is a Wordpress blog. She doesn't seem to me to meet WP:NACTOR either; Coronation Street is a notable show but her role in it was not significant, Kisses at Fifty is one episode of an anthology drama. Overall, she doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While she does have a Wikipedia page, most of her roles seem to be minor, except Get Some In! in which she has acted in 21 episodes, but as a minor role. She doesn't meet the notability criterion. Wikilover3509 (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kisses at Fifty was a one-off TV play, but an important one, where she had an important role. It was one of the best-known plays in Play for Today, and the BBC repeated it quite recently. Here role in Get Some In! wasn't that minor, she appears in the list of characters, and in the box at the start (and I did not put her there). PatGallacher (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems to pass WP:NACTOR for 2 significant roles in notable productions. More sources wouldn't hurt. I would have suggested a redirect to Kisses at Fifty, but her role in Get Some In! is also rather significant. Worst case scenario, that might be a solution, though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature of England[edit]

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

This page is nearly entirely covered by the article British literature. Quoting from the lead of that article, "Anglo-Saxon (Old English) literature is included, [in this article] and there is some discussion of Latin and Anglo-Norman literature". The parts not talked about there are under the other articles listed in the main topic hatnotes of each of the proposed article's sections. The only one not mentioned here in British lit is Hebrew literature from England, which as well has its own separate article. Your average reader, when typing "literature of England", is likely looking for the literature of England (covered in the British lit article) that is in English. Based off this, I propose to blank and redirect and merge this article into the aforementioned British literature article. This is done with many other literature country articles, seen in literature of France, which redirects to French literature, and literature of Germany, Spain, etc. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, United Kingdom, and England. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - briefly my problem with almost all pages of the "literature of x place" is that the subject is impossibly broad and therefore inclusion/exclusion decisions are at the whim of editors. That said there clearly are academics writing about it such as 1 - which itself has a more interesting lede para than the WP page - so by the WP:GNG it appears to have the level of independent scholarly RS for inclusion. I'd like to hear other thoughts to help clarify in my own mind whether (or how) this page could/should be kept. JMWt (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that this is not a deletion (or redirect) proposal for English literature, which entirely covers any content from the article literature of England that may be about literature from England in English. I'm aware plenty of sources exist for English literature in English, as this is why we have the former article, but the proposed article is about literature in England mostly not in English, which, as said above, is covered by either British literature or the other main articles. A possible remedy to this is maybe changing the potential new redirect target of this page from British literature to English literature, although the latter is not exclusive to England itself and is about literature written in English as a whole. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it is you that are confused or me. As far as I'm concerned
English literature refers to literature in the English language

Literature of England refers to literature produced in England in any language.
I do not understand why you keep implying that the Literature of England must necessarily be in the English language nor why we should take your word for that. JMWt (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to imply that, more so that in an article about English literature (meaning any literature written in England) — literature of England — the only content in the article is about literature that is not in English. By saying this I'm not implying that the article should only be about English literature in English, rather that the English literature in English is already fully covered in the articles of English literature and British literature, and as the latter is particular to the British Isles and the former is not as you said, the content from Literature of England (the proposed article) should be either redirected or incorporated into British lit. The British lit article does not have to be about just literature from GB in English, as is already said in the lead of the article. Another alternative would be to make Literature of England a disambig page to show the different articles of various languages of literature from England, although for now I'm staying with my original argument. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not delete to either British literature or English literature, as appropriate. My understanding is that "English literature" is the literature of England, irrespective of what language it's written in; I presume the same is true of "British literature". Merger is the correct procedure if there's potentially useful material here, even if the contribution is minimal, or it turns out that everything is already included; in that case the article would still become a redirect to one of the relevant articles, but readers checking the article history would see that any relevant content here was reviewed and included in the target article before this became a redirect. The difference between merger and deletion is sometimes subtle, but still important. P Aculeius (talk 13:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original proposal was never to delete the article, as I said in the wording above, it is to blank and redirect the article. There is nothing to merge, and thus blanking and redirecting, (per WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R) is an acceptable means of dealing with sitations such as this, and again per those policies, it is advised that controversial blanks and redirects are discussed on AFD, as I did here, even if the goal is not deletion.

Also, remember that it is best practice to sign your talk page comments by adding four tildes at the end of a message. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking and redirecting is pretty much deletion—and this is "Articles for deletion", not "Articles for discussion". A merge doesn't necessarily involve moving things to other articles, but it ensures that editors know that the whole contents of an article—or anything useful in it—has been covered at the target article. Whether there's useful content isn't determined by whether it's duplicative of something better elsewhere. As I said, the distinction between merger and deletion is sometimes a subtle one, but important: if you just "blank and redirect" without indicating that the article was merged, editors might reasonably infer that no effort was made to ensure that the topic was fully covered at the target article or other appropriate places. And really no significant effort is required on anybody's part to do a merge in an instance where the contents are fully covered, so what's the objection?

Also, remember that any editor likely to comment on procedure probably knows how to sign a comment, and doesn't need an explanation of how to do it. It's easy enough to forget to type four tildes when editing one's own comments. P Aculeius (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see your point and I mostly agree, though it doesn't really seem right to call it a "merge" when no content is being merged into the new article, and incorporating parts of an existing article into a different one and then redirecting/deleting it is different than simply not incorporating any content and simply blanking and redirecting. We do seem to basically be on the same page though and I'll change the wording for not wanting to argue. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are American literature and Scottish literature articles, not sure why England would be an exception. There is overlap with British literature but the solution could be to move some of the content from there to English literature rather than have a British article primarily about England. Peter James (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Telecommunications Limited[edit]

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

As with many regional B2B companies, this one does not appear to meet the WP:NCORP standards of notability. While there are a lot of sources, they are almost exclusively to WP:TRADES that do not help establish notability. Moreover, virtually all of the coverage is of the WP:ORGTRIV variety (hirings, market expansions, product offerings, acquisitions, etc.), or they are Q&A interviews and thus primary sources. A WP:BEFORE search found that the author has put just about every available source into this story and even then it doesn't come close to NCORP. As a result, I propose to merge any encyclopedic content into KT Corporation, Epsilon's parent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Singapore, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All refs fail WP:SIRS in one way or another, so fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I have not been able to find anything either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I am also comfortable with a redirect to KT Corporation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per UtherSRG. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KT Corp. --BoraVoro (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Bell (figure skater)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and England. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing NSKATE or GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, was about to !vote in the old AfD but was too late. @Doczilla I don't know if it would have changed your close if I had asked you to reopen the previous AfD so I could !vote, but I thought I should ping you here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I would not have reopened. Reopening AfD should be under more serious circumstances and not commonplace because they have to end. Some already seem to go on forever.Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870)[edit]

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

Too much cruft, must be deleted as per convention to remove the australian fanfict articles Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, History, Cricket, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @JoelleJay @Trainsandotherthings @Serial Number 51429 as I have seen them in support for such article removals Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:APPNOTE says "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." James500 (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is clear WP:CANVASSing of people they expect to vote with them. This canvassing should be considered by the closer of this AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What are you referring to by "australian fanfict articles"? -1ctinus📝🗨 01:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, discussion to merge completed (please see said discussion)
- Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1956 and Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1953 already merged, deleted earlier. However this set of wg grace articles have hardly one ga, so many stubs and other full of stuff not required. They arent notable enough for wikipedia.
Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the two pages was merged they should not have been deleted. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you copy some text from another Wikipedia page it should be clear in the edit summary and/or the talk page where the text came from. Wikipedia is not public domain. Christian75 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I havent done that mate, just nominated these pages Pharaoh496 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I was pinged to this discussion, and that I'm not a fan of these articles, I believe we should delete all as fundamental violations of WP:NOT as cricket statistics turned into articles due to one person's consumption by what I like to call the cricket insanity. They are also clearly non-notable as the sources cover Grace's entire career, not simply his performance in any given event. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably merge the shorter articles, with less referencing, to larger articles covering longer periods of time. These articles do not consist entirely of statistics, though it may be appropriate to cut some material from them. A chronological split of our W G Grace article will satisfy GNG. See, for example, the coverage of the 1880s in Bax's chapter "The Glorious Eighties" [17]; the chapter on Grace in Portraits of the Eighties: [18]; Midwinter's chapters 7 and 8 on 1879 to 1891: [19]; and Darwin's chapter 6 on 1880 to 1891: [20]. So you could certainly write an article on W. G. Grace in the 1880s or the period 1879 to 1891. The question is not whether the main biography article should be split, but how. W G Grace is the subject of a large number of entire books, since he is probably considered the greatest cricketer of all time, so his biography is not realistically going to fit in a single article. James500 (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well other cricketers with longer careers do also have same articles. One new thing that has been inspired from football articles is a seperate career page - Career of Lionel Messi. Since Virat Kohli's page was long, I made this article Career of Virat Kohli. Maybe something similar? Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Rogers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level does not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. No senior level competition at all. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and England. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSKATE Claire 26 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer M. Adams[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a diplomat, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for diplomats. As always, ambassadors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about their work in independent third-party sources such as media or books -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source content self-published by the government (i.e. her own employer), with absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy sourcing shown at all.
Further, this was draftspaced last year per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer M. Adams, before being arbitrarily moved back into mainspace earlier this month on the grounds that her nomination had finally been confirmed by the Senate -- but since the notability bar for ambassadors hinges on GNG-worthy coverage, and not on the simple fact of having been confirmed into the position per se, that should never have happened without the draft being significantly improved with stronger sourcing first.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable in the absence of significantly better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, England, Maryland, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Ambassadors are not inherently notable, and there's no secondary coverage of her. SportingFlyer T·C 00:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Bearcat: ambassadors don’t automatically become notable just by existing. They have to meet WP:GNG or criteria such as WP:NPOL (if they have a political background). I checked the sources and found they are primary, which can’t establish notability. She fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 08:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, sourcing is not good enough to meet WP:BIO and ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golf Course News International[edit]

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

Looking through the sources, I'm not finding any evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this apparently defunct publication. Basically all of the coverage of the publication revolves around its disastrous raunchy 2006 rebrand. The only mainstream source I can find covering the publication in any detail is an article in the Independent from 2006 covering the rebrand, along with a very brief article in Press Gazette covering a hiring decision the same year, with other coverage of the rebrand in the niche Golf Business News also in 2006. There's also a 2006 public statement by ex publication head Trevor Ledger in Pitchcare regarding the rebrand. Either way, even if these niche golf sources counted, it still wouldn't pass WP:SUSTAINED due to all the sources being from 2006. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Sports, Golf, United Kingdom, and England. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamales Lardi[edit]

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

Questionable notability and clearly WP:PROMO Amigao (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Women, Technology, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are more than 50 sources in the article which satisfies the significant coverage criteria of Wikipedia. The article should therefore be kept. Dlarrpi (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Whiteley[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was routine transfer news (1, 2, 3, 4). JTtheOG (talk) 21:16, 16 May 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) 21:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided Young player who could have an extensive career, but currently not notable and I sufficient coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, routine transactional announcements are not sufficient to meet NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relyon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources doesn't establish notability as defined as WP:ORG. Even doesn't pass WP:GNG. Tanhasahu (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scarborough Rugby League Festival[edit]

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

Unreferenced, fails notability Mn1548 (talk) 13:03, 16 May 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 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby league, and England. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable tournament with minimal coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TJ The Frenchie[edit]

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

It pains me greatly to be taking an article about such an obviously very good boy to AfD, but based on my search, he does not meet WP:GNG. The only editorial coverage I came across was from Kent Life, a local newspaper. JSFarman (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject in my searches for sources. I found a 6 March 2020 article in the Swindon Advertiser that discusses a two-year-old Frenchie-cross-American bulldog named TJ. But this Wikipedia article says TJ the Frenchie was born 19 March 2021, so this would be a different TJ. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find independent and reliable SIGCOV about the subject. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Heil[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Hull Kingston Rovers players as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:12, 15 May 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) 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Three professional appearances is not notable, oppose above redirect as he has played for multiple clubs, can't even say he spent the most time at KR. Mn1548 (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hull Kingston Rovers players as he’s not notable enough on his own. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joerg Stadler[edit]

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

Article subject requests deletion. (VRT Ticket 2024051410010337) Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to have been a prolific character actor, his most well-known role is likely the "Saving Private Ryan" appearance. I don't find any sourcing about him, appears marginally notable. I'm ok with the subject's request for deletion, there isn't a strong case to !keep. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Germany, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Beck (music manager)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass notability test. Reads like a resume. No secondary sources. Risedemise (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pomotional. Creator User:Cate andersona Possible sock. — Maile (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yep. It's just a resume without any secondary sources. Can't find any either after a quick Google search. TheWikiToby (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, Management, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 15 May 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Allum[edit]

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

Couldn't find significant coverage of him. I searched on newspapers.com for his name as well as "Albert Allum" and "Albie Allum" but no sigcov was found. Dougal18 (talk) 12:12, 14 May 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 May 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:59, 15 May 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.

Leeds Rhinos–Wakefield Trinity rivalry[edit]

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

No evidence that this is a particularly notable rivalry, if it can even be considered one at all. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was originally only about the festive challenge, but was renamed and expanded 3 years ago. Any rivalry between them appears no different than most other clubs in the area so the first part of the article could be section moved into West Yorkshire derbies. The festive challenge could be kept as a separate article but needs some improvement – currently this section is poorly sourced and incomplete (sources indicate it stared before 2009: BBC Sport, RFL). EdwardUK (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the festive challenge wasn't always exclusively a Leeds v Wakefield friendly (Leeds have played other opponents in the past: [21] [22]), so that part should definitely be removed or separated into another article. I've no problem with merging the rest with West Yorkshire derbies if others think it's notable enough for inclusion. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer information and redirect to West Yorkshire derbies#Leeds Rhinos and Wakefield Trinity Mn1548 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If adequate sources, can be found supporting that the Festive Challenge was once more than Leeds vs Wakefield then this should be created as a new article. Mn1548 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are sources which have the festive challenge first being played in 1996 and mention Halifax, Bradford and Castleford as taking part before Wakefield so a move back to the original page name would be suitable for this section. But I could find very little about Leeds and Wakefield being regarded as rivals and it is not mentioned in lists of derbies: [23]. EdwardUK (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this rivalry, along with a few others, seems to have just been bolted on to the "West Yorkshire Derby" section of Derbies in the Rugby Football League which from what I can gather, the West Yorkshire Derby is between Leeds and Bradford. Would support a move back to the original page name for Festive Challenge content only with the rest being transferred to the West Yorkshire derbies page, then a clear up of said page for any rivalries that appear to have just been made up. Mn1548 (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the content relating to the Boxing Day friendlies to Festive Challenge. Thanks to @EdwardUK:'s work, I think this is well sourced enough to be kept, so I'm withdrawing my nomination for that part of the article. Now it's just whether the remaining content should be merged or deleted. I personally don't think it's a strong enough rivalry to be included even on the West Yorkshire page. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: To preserve the page history, it would need to be a merge or redirect rather than a delete. If it was merged, I doubt it would be kept following any clean-up of the WY derbies article. The head-to-head needs updating, and I am not sure how relevant the collective honours table is to any rivalry if the teams have never played each other in some of the competitions and Wakefield have never taken part in others. EdwardUK (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 5[edit]

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 2[edit]

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 1[edit]

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run of the mill bus, only sources are timetables bus maps or self published fansites. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove Breeze routes[edit]

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the routes have been discussed in various sources including the national broadcaster BBC News. I've added some of these to the article. Garuda3 (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nomination statement is misleading. This article is about a group of three related bus routes, not an individual one as stated, bringing into question how much attention has been paid to it and to whether any WP:BEFORE has been attempted? Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good spot. Garuda3 (talk) 22:11, 11 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!} 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Sparrow Simpson[edit]

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

Nothing in the article suggests notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was a fairly prolific author, and did a lot to improve the library at St Paul's Cathedral. Anna795bc (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:38, 10 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!} 07:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Search shows the subject is not notable. With over 10,000 Anglican Priests the position is not notable. None of the books written by the subject has achieved Notability and notability is not inherited. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Towler-Green[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and United Kingdom. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Beg[edit]

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

So at first glance, this BLP looks legit but upon but digging deeper, I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows or movies as required per WP:ACTOR. Also, when I tried to find more about the subject per WP:BEFORE, I didn't come across enough coverage to meet WP:GNG either. Plus, it's worth noting that this BLP was created back in 2021 by a SPA Sahgalji (talk · contribs) and has been mostly edited by UPEs so there's COI issues as well. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 8 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!} 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Bartlett (racing driver)[edit]

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

Notability not demonstrated. I find a couple of passing references to Bartlett in reliable sources, but nothing substantial. See discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#John_Bartlett_(racing_driver) Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:NMOTORSPORT. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though WSCC and IMSA are not explicitly listed in WP:NMOTORSPORT they are "significant international motorsport series" (as mentioned in the second bullet point). NuIotaChi (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sportspeople, Motorsport, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage about being jailed: [24]. Also [25]. Feels like there should be more coverage... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My name is John Bartlett (the John Bartlett you are discussing). I have just been alerted to this situation. I'm not very internet savvy so not sure if I'm supposed to even comment but have been directed to this discussion.

Having now viewed the various comments here I thought I should perhaps point out that my actual blog/website already has my medical history published (including the MRI scans somebody mentioned, which in fact have my name on the top of the scan, albeit very small). The MRI scan on my website site is bigger so it's easier to see my name.

Re the other "John Bartlett" someone referred to as owning a US hockey team (I think). That person bears no relation to me, so is clearly a different John Bartlett! I therefore have no idea if what is being said about him owning a hockey team in the US is correct or not.

I spent most of my racing career in the world sports car championship/world endurance championship, generally considered (at the time) to be one tier below F1. My blog also has a lot of my career facts/history/documents etc. Most of my former racing history is in paper form in book/reference books (such as the various Official Le Mans Yearbooks) etc.

As to the person questioning something about my company, Maidstone Scuba, if you look at the 'Meet our team of PADI instructors' on the website, you'll see I am still the Director of Maidstone Scuba School, althow I have just seen that I am shown as being 61, which is incorrect.

Because what happened to me back in 1993/4, I have always freely publish (albeit with helpers) everything. Therefore everything mentioned about me is already in the public domain and therefore their is no breach of any copyright.

I'm now almost 70, and anything internet is usually handled for me by various very kind 'helpers'.

I'm not a lot of good at any of this internet stuff but can be contacted by old-fashioned phone (Redacted). I attempted to add my email address but it wont allow me to do that! Their is a messaging system on Maidstone Scuba so you can contact me on that if needed. if I can assist any further.

John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@77.101.199.59: Hi John. Do you know whether you have been covered in-depth in independent sources? E.g. stories focusing about you in newspapers, racing magazines, etc.? If so, let us know and that could be able to rescue the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there will be lots of stuff but I'd have to search through boxes and I'm about to leave tomorrow for Birmingham for a protest outside the offices of the CCRC on Friday (we're hoping it might hit the headlines)!

I do remember putting a Post of a German magazine on my Facebook page a few years ago (probably 2014/15) that did a feature of some sort about me but I have no idea what it said, as it was all in German, but it did have various photos of my Team. I have enough trouble with english as I'm very dyslexic!

I will defiantly have Le Mans year books for 84/85/86/87 (the years we ran) but I'll have to find them, probably in the roof!

I do know Penthouse Magazine (who were sponsoring us that year) ran a full a 2 page article on us in 1987. I suspect it was published in the July or Aug edition, as Le Mans would have been June. I'll see if I can at least find the German article for a start but it probably won't be until I get back. Thanks, John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That should have been "definitely", not defiantly!!!

Anyway, I've found it, but still no idea what it says. It was 'RTL GP magazine' and I put it on my facebook page on 3rd Feb 2015. On the front cover it mentions Features on Lamborghini, De Tomaso and Bardon, a car we ran in 85/86/87 in WSPC. The Bardon was the Group C car I developed in 1996. The name was a mix of BAR (me) and DON (Robin Donovan). Robin was one of my regular co-drivers and is listed on Wikipedia.

I have just re posted the magazine on my Facebook page as a memory.

Hope this helps but I'm going to be away until next week now (longer if I'm arrested)!

John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the message below to BeanieFan11 last night but I don't know if you also got to see that message? I will now be away until next week but I have added my direct contact info below. John

My name is John Bartlett (the John Bartlett you are discussing). I have just been alerted to this situation. I'm not very internet savvy so not sure if I'm supposed to even comment but have been directed to this discussion.

Having now viewed the various comments here I thought I should perhaps point out that my actual blog/website already has my medical history published (including the MRI scans somebody mentioned, which in fact have my name on the top of the scan, albeit very small). The MRI scan on my website site is bigger so it's easier to see my name.

Re the other "John Bartlett" someone referred to as owning a US hockey team (I think). That person bears no relation to me, so is clearly a different John Bartlett! I therefore have no idea if what is being said about him owning a hockey team in the US is correct or not.

I spent most of my racing career in the world sports car championship/world endurance championship, generally considered (at the time) to be one tier below F1. My blog also has a lot of my career facts/history/documents etc. Most of my former racing history is in paper form in book/reference books (such as the various Official Le Mans Yearbooks) etc.

As to the person questioning something about my company, Maidstone Scuba, if you look at the 'Meet our team of PADI instructors' on the website, you'll see I am still the Director of Maidstone Scuba School, althow I have just seen that I am shown as being 61, which is incorrect.

Because what happened to me back in 1993/4, I have always freely publish (albeit with helpers) everything. Therefore everything mentioned about me is already in the public domain and therefore their is no breach of any copyright.

I'm now almost 70, and anything internet is usually handled for me by various very kind 'helpers'.

I'm not a lot of good at any of this internet stuff but can be contacted by old-fashioned phone ([REDACTED]). I attempted to add my email address but it wont allow me to do that! Their is a messaging system on Maidstone Scuba so you can contact me on that if needed. if I can assist any further.

John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read your message. I'll see if I look into the German article / Facebook post soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To closer: request relisting to allow for more time to research. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Beanie's request, and as there is currently no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Nanetti[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This footballer, who seems to have never played in the top 3 tiers in Italy or top 4 tiers in England, was deemed non-notable in an AfD discussion in 2020. I can't find signicant coverage in reliable sources published since then that would suggest he is now notable – per WP:GNG, as WP:NFOOTBALL is obsolete. The article content is not the same as the version deleted in 2020, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. ^Complex/_Rational 17:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] among many more English and Italian sources. Clearly siginifciant figure in English lower league football with extnsive career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of these sources, The Sun and Daily Mail are not considered reliable (deprecated, as documented at WP:RS/PS), and several others are blogs/tabloids which have similar shortcomings. Is there anything in more reputed sources such as BBC, Sky News, The Guardian, etc.? ^Complex/_Rational 20:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. seems okay, but not sure it's WP:SIGCOV, 2. per WP:THESUN, The Sun is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability, 3. very short, mostly quotes 4. short, mostly quotes, 5. a Wordpress blog – is the author a "subject-matter expert"?, 6. very short, mostly quotes, 7. short, mostly quotes, 8. one sentence mentions him, 9. per WP:DAILYMAIL, The Daily Mail is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability. So, of the nine sources you listed, one might be SIGCOV. Based on these sources alone, I don't see that Nannetti's a clearly significiant figure in English lower league football. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per @Das osmnezz. Svartner (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article fail WP:SIRS, and the sources listed above none are independent significal coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EMR Regional[edit]

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

I can't see that there's any coverage of this line of services that is distinct from East Midlands Railway, nor do I think this is a good candidate for a WP:CFORK. The only additional content that exists here is a WP:DIRECTORY of every route this provider operates on. BrigadierG (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and United Kingdom. BrigadierG (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage of EMR Regional relates to its plans to refurbish its rolling stock, which seems to be smaller and older than that used by EMR Intercity. I found several references for refurbishment and added them to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the main scope of the page is to describe the routes its operating on. Because An article that is only about refurbishments of something is almost never allowed and can be placed on the relevant part of the article instead. Plus it is not titled refurbishment of the EMR fleet. It seems as though EMR are either brand new trains (class 810, due to enter within 12 months), sourcing newer trains (class 170, built 1998-2005) or in the process of refurbishment after it withdrew its HSTs, 153s, 156s and even the 180s. JuniperChill (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not only that, but please also note WP:REFBOMB. No more than three sources per sentence, plus I am not sure about the reliability of these sources. JuniperChill (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> Actually, the main scope of the page is to describe the routes its operating on.

Have you been familiar with the discourse surrounding similar subjects such as lists of airline destinations? I'm really loathe to have more of these kinds of big piles of information on Wikipedia without further context? There's moderate consensus (albeit several years old) that these things are generally not good bases for articles. BrigadierG (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are just reprints of press releases - replacing some of your trains is just a normal run-of-the-mill activity when you operate a train line. I'm not contesting that the operator itself is notable, just the idea that its two train services need separate articles of their own. See WP:ROTM BrigadierG (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Selective merge to East Midlands Railway. This article is little more than a timetable at present without any justification for being split from the East Midlands Railway article. Eastmain refbombing with press releases actually makes me more convinced this isn't a notable topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Selective merge with East Midlands Railway, this article seems to be copied/duplicated from that article. Any changes of rolling stock can easily be under headings in the table on the main article. Should the EMR article get long in the future, a split can be raised then. The refurbishment of trains is not exactly a notable reason for a separate article, if it were more than just a sub-brand, like a division or another company, then maybe the situation would be different. Otherwise the refurbishment of some trains can be largely just one sentence at EMR, as it is largely a minor routine event for train operators. Dank Jae 19:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Selective merge with East Midlands Railway - as already mentioned above, the article as it is is nothing more than a list of routes with little additional content; nothing that would be out of place in the main EMR article. Danners430 (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alley of the Dolls (band)[edit]

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

Newly created article, PROD declined. Sourcing does not establish WP:GNG being met. WP:BEFORE brings up only a couple of brief reviews of their EP. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to add additional citations to the EP as many exist MusicForeverYours (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added citations to additional reviews, more are available but not always in English as the band has a lot of support in none English speaking countries so reviews are not in English as is requested by Wikipedia. MusicForeverYours (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 18 is a RS for the album review; the rest used now in the article is primary or non-RS. I can only find the Spill Magazine review, so without any other sources, the band is not at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: If more citations for this article exist, they should absolutely be added. it's free realist 9 16:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two additional reviews and citations added to establish bands obvious notability. More available but dont want the article to just be a list of magazine reviews. Happy to add more if this view isnt shared. MusicForeverYours (talk) 15:48, 21 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!} 22:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unzela Khan[edit]

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

It appears the subject doesn't meet the WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR, as their works don't seem noteworthy enough. The press coverage in WP:RS also not significant or in depth enough, so fails to meet WP:GNG. Does not satisfy WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Pakistan, and United Kingdom. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is not noteworthy.

Crosji (talk) 05:00, 4 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!} 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or better to be moved to the draft Kotebeet (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with the nominator. A British Muslim Awards recipient is already qualified for a Wikipedia entry per WP:ANYBIO and from the article was cited to a reliable source per WP:RS. Also, as a journalist of a notable newspaper or TV which she was for Huffpost give us assurance of passing WP:JOURNALIST. She also wrote a book which is notable enough to qualify WP:NAUTHOR. What's then needed for an article? Not being braid doesn't mean it came be a standalone article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @Saqib, @Crosji, and @Kotebeet for the argument per se. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I so saw so may PR but was able to get reliable ones. See here and here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, I'm curious about how she meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria simply for working at Huffpost. The policy doesn't say anything like this. Additionally, is writing just one book sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One book which is reviewed by reliable sources is considered as notable. But may not require a article. However, we usually have problem when journalists wrote about others as few or less writing about them, in other way, winning an award for such excellence in media is part of both ANYBIO and JOURNALISM. While these are additional criteria, the article generally meets our general notability guidelines where being cited to reliable sources, verifiable and significantly covered per WP:SIGCOV. Even as there isn't any fact for such, a redirect should have served better not only when she won a major award and a book mistake reviewed. Let's be truthful herein and ignore certain additional essays. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because the article raises concerns regarding its credibility due to several factors: 1) Excessive Referencing: With only six sentences, the presence of ten references seems disproportionate. This abundance of citations may suggest an attempt to over-validate the content rather than provide genuine support for the points made. 2) Questionable Contributor: The primary contributor, "User:Kotebeet," [contributed approximately 80% of the content], is no longer active on the platform. This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor.--Crosji (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crosji, you are wrong here. I disagree that an AFD process requires the author except in major cases like undisclosed WP:UPE or thereabout. I am asking you do look at the article by our process of inclusion; WP:GNG. If you have any issue with the creator, then face them. I can't find any argument you're making besides you vote says "not noteworthy". Meaning? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crosji, also there is no issue of WP:REFBOMB here. I don't seem to understand your statement This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor, when a creator doesn't require anything on whether to delete an article or keep them. However, this is a process and you can't vote twice. Do remove any of the votes. Thanks! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bajirao's Konkan Campaign[edit]

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

The article is entirely based on original research and the synthesis of multiple events involving various states. It discusses military conflicts labeled as "Bajirao's Konkan Campaign," incorporating entities such as the Siddis, Nizam of Hyderabad, the British East India Company, and the Portuguese Empire. However, no reliable sources consider all these entities as belligerent allies against the Marathas during Bajirao I's campaign. The creator has conflated conflicts involving Bajirao with those of other kingdoms/states/entities and inserted "Maratha victory" in the infobox, despite the differing outcomes recorded in historical records. It's unclear what the author intended, but the content of the article largely duplicates information already present in numerous parent articles. This attempt seems to glorify an entity through the use of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, combining unrelated conflicts. Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, Portugal, and England. Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draft I have spent days in it so please I would request the closer to draft this page if not keep, I have added reliable sources covering this campaign, if there are possible OR and SYNTH then I'd fix it.

Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:If articles of this kind fall within the scope, we could also maintain an article titled Alexander the Great's Punjab Campaign, alongside Indian campaign of Alexander the Great and Battle of Hydaspes. Ironically, this would involve including both the Achaemenid Empire and the Pauravas in a single infobox!! That would afford everyone an opportunity to express their creativity, but this isn't the appropriate venue for it.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 6 sources on the page. 2 strong sources are from historians Sinha and Sardesai. 19 page coverage from Sinha and 4 page coverage from Sardesai. I can not verify other 4 sources but with two reliable sources that the page took its help from, is enough for keeping the page and it passes the general notability guidelines. Page does need improvement too. RangersRus (talk) 14:44, 15 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!} 22:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RouteNote[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Out of the 9 sources in the article only 4 could have the potential to count towards NCORP, and out of the 4, I am not entirely satisfied with their independence. ([35][36][37][38]). This article appeared for me while doing WP:NPP and I wasn't comfortable accepting it and with the last AfD being no consensus, I thought I'd opt for the AfD route. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep weakly. Would prefer a redirect to some kind of article on music distributors but I couldn't find anything appropriate. In arriving at a view to keep, I have taken into account the sources found at the third AfD, but note that no one has accessed any of these paywalled reports and one of them has gone away. However, Highking's view there is worth careful consideration. Add to that the sources in the article. The 4 mentioned by the nom. do indeed have issues, although they are debatable/marginal. Additionally RouteNote gets mentioned in a number of books. E.g.^[1]^[2]^[3] And if this were some (still) unreleased video game[39] or something then that would be way more sourcing than anyone could dream of! But this is an NCORP AfD, and the problem with the sources lies in WP:CORPDEPTH. By that measure we need Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. The books provide coverage of the service (i.e. product) but not of the company. Even then, whether we have deep coverage is very debatable. Except for the analyst reports. They may well have exactly what is needed to write the article... but no one knows! On a strict reading of NCORP, we are not there. By any other measure, this is notable. I don't think deletion is a net positive for the encyclopaedia, so unless someone knows of where it could be redirected/merged, I think this one should be (reluctantly) kept. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Eriksson, Maria; Fleischer, Rasmus; Johansson, Anna; Snickars, Pelle; Vonderau, Patrick (2019). Spotify teardown: inside the black box of streaming music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262038904.
^ Chertkow, Randy; Feehan, Jason (4 September 2018). Making Money with Music: Generate Over 100 Revenue Streams, Grow Your Fan Base, and Thrive in Today's Music Environment. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 978-1-250-19209-7.
^ Sadler, Nick (4 July 2021). The Label Machine: How to Start, Run and Grow Your Own Independent Music Label. Velocity Press.

India at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup[edit]

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

These articles are unnecessary WP:CFORKs from the main article 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup, and are not required. We have never created articles for teams at Cricket World Cups before, as they are wholly unnecessary, and just copying content available on other articles, such as 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup and 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup squads. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, South Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, England, and Australia. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating articles for other countries at this event:

Keep - The following articles would be suitable as in the T20 World Cup, many matches will be played and in these articles, the readers can read the per match summary, team's tournament progression, tournament kit, scorecard, per team statistics and many more of the respective cricket team at a single article, which is not possible to mention at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup article. Any articles which haven't been created earlier doesn't mean it is unnecessary, there should be an article to record any team's particular tournament edition journey. Wowlastic10 (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament summaries should be in the main article anyway, which would cover the important matches and information, so a split out for match summaries for every match including the WP:ROUTINE coverage ones is not required. Tournament kit would be WP:TRIVIA, team statistics sounds like it would violate WP:NOTSTATS/WP:TRIVIA. None of this sounds like encyclopedic content, and just because people create these articles for e.g. IPL teams (which are questionable to do anyway), that doesn't mean they are valid WP:CFORKs for this tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we keep it until first week of T20 World Cup? If you feel it useless then also, then you're free to delete it. What say? Wowlastic10 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be against this, as the onus is to prove that they are valid articles, not keeping in the hope they might be, against any evidence that they'll be anything other than a WP:CFORK with trivia and stats obsessions (like the IPL season articles). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The concept is basically like India at the 2020 Summer Olympics, where pages like India at the Cricket World Cup are split for every edition. This is infact a very important addition to wikipedia and should be made for all teams having played every ICC tournament. Like the IPL teams, county teams; this is a very valuable addition as each page will contain stuff others cant.

I have been working on similar articles in my private space, but havent published them yet as I want to properly finish the thing before publishing.

@Wowlastic10 I would encourage you to make similar articles for all editions of the T20 World Cup. Do remove the words ICC Men’s and make it like India at the 2024 T20 World Cup; following the common name process. Furthermore, include national stats such as viewership, tournament stats of players of that country, pictures, quotes, squad information and match details with some description. Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not rename these as suggested without WP:RM consensus, as the main article is at 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Also this comment doesn't address WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More squad information such as matches played by each person, caps, etc
Proper matchwise description - not there on any other page
More information about reaction of said mactches and tournament in the country
Place to add pictures

Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information on individual players as well. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More squad information such as matches played by each person, caps, etc - can be added to squad article, as has been done for some 50 over World Cup events.

Proper matchwise description - only needed for notable matches, not those with routine coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a fandom site.

Reactions are mostly trivial and unencyclopedic, and any events/reactions that are actually important can go in the main article.

Lots of pictures violates WP:NOTGALLERY

So none of these are a good reason to create these WP:CFORKs. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup I agree with the nom. I don't see these as being necessary as content for these forks will just be re-hashed details for the main article, and then lists and stats that violate WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS as they will just be random indiscriminate. If a particular team has a 'special' tournament, or gains significant coverage for another reason, then perhaps a fork can then be made, but one for each team is unnecessary, and the comparison to the Olympic articles doesn't wash given how much bigger an event (with loads more events and athletes) than a cricket tournament. We don't have forks for Football World Cup articles for example. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia, and these lists provide extra information about the playing nation than the main article. Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per @Wowlastic10, this can be more than a list, and it warrants an article for each country. If the article does not have unique info it can be merged back. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I'm saying, thanks for explaining it on my behalf. Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia- true, but putting information into various sub articles so people can add stats trivia isn't the best way of displaying it. We have an article on the events and squad articles, and those are the main 2 things about each team anyway. WP:CFORKs are still not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I can see these becoming unnecessary, poor quality, content forks consisting of minimal prose and just scorecards... nothing which can't be included in the main tournament article. AA (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let this discussion end, i'll again start including all the necessary details Wowlastic10 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont mean to bludgeon, but this has high chances of not ending up as a mere stub; per my reasons stated above. Each ipl team gets an annual page for its tournaments, as do the english county teams. This will only broaden and improve wikipedia's scope on the matter, considering the quality of cricket articles on here is way down compared to other sports. Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE, just because other events like the IPL get articles like this every year (which I don't agree with anyway), that doesn't mean these should too. Nobody so far has demonstrated why this isn't an unnecessary WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many times a player has played in the tournament - how many matches a swuad member played

top 5 batting and bowling averages in the team etc

catches and dismissals

reaction / outrage / media coverage of tournament and team in said country

prizes and awards won by players for performance in tourney

explicit knockout stage performances

I respect your opinion wholeheartedly, but ipl and county teams have existed for long, with some of them featured and good articles. This is an opportunity for editors, who will add more valuable info and like i said, simply broaden wikipedia’s scope. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of these things are encyclopedic enough, and no article with them will be a GA or FA if the process for GA or FA is applied properly. County teams don't have season articles and most IPL teams have tables and no prose, which is what these articles are and likely will always be. This is an encyclopedia and not a fandom site. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's easy for a visitor to get all the details about their desired team at one place. I'd say we keep the Teamwise articles and should nominate the Squads article for deletion. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
If the squads article isn't there, and all the fixtures are instead transcluded from the main page; it won't be a WP:CFORK. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:ILIKEIT. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not what I like, it's a suggestion to improve these articles. Vestrian24Bio (U, T, A, C, S) 07:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Squad articles are a cricket standard for these events, and can be expanded easily. These country articles are not standard or needed, swapping one squad article for loads of country articles is not a good solution. Just because it's the sort of thing WP:IPL would do, that doesn't mean other cricket tournament articles should do that. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty much the point. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a deletion discussion about squad articles, that would need a separate consensus (and nominating right now would just further muddy the waters). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (alternate solution): per nom individual articles for teams' performance at each world cup seems uneccesary. I suggest we have articles for teams' overall record in the tournament and we can have season wise breakdown or details there. Cric editor (talk) 3:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Per nom. Needless forking. RangersRus (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. My instinct, as a regular AFD closer is to Redirect these article to the competition which is typically what we do with bundled nominations like this. But I don't see a consensus for this action so that would be a supervote on my part. I'd rather not close this as No consensus so let's see if a few more days of consideration can form a rough consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup Dowrylauds (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ONS built-up areas in England by population[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Social science, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed on the talk page, this list relies on a single WP:PRIMARY source and has multiple WP:SYNTH issues. It is a poor summary of the primary source [UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) release] because it lacks the extensive contextualisation included in that source. In the absence of any secondary sources, it adds nothing to the original source. In terms of encyclopedic value, it is of dubious merit because the nomenclature chosen by the ONS conflicts with common usage and thus requires qualification by a complete list of included and excluded wards/parishes – which it doesn't have as that would require even more SYNTH violations.

The only alternative to outright deletion that I can see is to park it in draft space until the ONS produces its statistics by agglomeration (conurbation). There is a reason why no secondary sources have bothered to respond to this release of statistics: it is not useful. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would like to point out List of urban areas in the United Kingdom,

ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom and multiple county by population articles should fall in the same category if the decision is to delete the article. If the ONS are releasing agglomerations (which is highly unlikely) these are would go on to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom unless both are (understandably to to me) merged if they do. JMF maybe you should have put the second paragraph in a separate reply with delete in bold as the first one paragraph sets the discussion and the second is your opinion and it would make it easier to skim down the bold to know which action or inaction is taken. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there consensus on which list the the 'definitive' one? Would it be possible to merge all the different place types into one page or even one table? The way population in the UK is broken down seems really inconsistent which know this has been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. I added a comment on Talk:Birkenhead built-up area last week when I came across it because I feel the article's very existence does the opposite of adding to the sum of human knowledge. To stay on topic: the reason I ask is I would agree with the deletion of this page (and others) depending on page would remain. Orange sticker (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the problem in a nutshell. Political boundaries (civil parishes, UAs etc.) are well defined but subject to sudden changes. Settlement boundaries are not well defined and are subject to 'creep' and merge. Political boundaries don't catch up, so you get nonsense like large parts of Reading that are excluded because they were built across the local authority line. Ditto Cambridge and Luton/Dunstable. Birkenhead (indeed the Wirral in total) is nothing like what it was 100 years ago, yet some people try very hard to insist that places that have merged are still distinct because they can't cope with the concept of a polycentric settlement, or can't accept that their "village" has become a suburb. So without a single undisputed definition of a settlement, we will never have a single undisputed list of settlements and (IMO at least) it is counterproductive and misleading to pretend otherwise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC) revised 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We often keep lists of populated places as published by reliable government sources. I don't see the SYNTH issue, any contextualisation can be edited into the article, and not useful is an argument to avoid as it's in the eye of the beholder. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider it sensible to have a list that includes no part of Greater London whatever, doesn't recognise Greater Manchester, includes Solihull in "Birmingham", omits Caversham, Reading from "Reading" and Bletchley from "Milton Keynes"? In fact a list that has to qualify many name places to explain what they include and (prospectively) what they don't include. How is that useful? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The London region is a approximately a 5th of the UKs population and rough the same population as all the other nations combined so yes the ONS don’t record the areas BUAs like Scotland and Northern Ireland (it did for Wales).

Greater Manchester is a combined authority and county not a 2021BUA. Solihull is separate (number 63) to Birmingham. Chocolateediter (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is based on ONS data, excluding the Greater London and Manchester. It is not aligned to either geographical or political areas (example:Castle Point is split on this list is split into Canvey, Thundersley and South Benfleet but no mention of Hadleigh). It does even meet postal or phone code areas. So how useful is this to readers? Zero.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is what it is, a reproduction of ONS data, which is what it says it is, it's not our job to second guess or judge whether the ONS have got things right or not, merely to report it, which is what the article does. G-13114 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Fails the general notability guideline - not presumed a notable subject by significant coverage in reliable sources, and has a sole significant source, being a primary source only and not independent of the subject - the ONS itself. Not justified under the notability criteria for a stand-alone list, with no indication that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Lacks encyclopedic value, being an abstruse segmentation of census data with such startling omissions and variable relationship to settlements as to be misleading. As to our job, it is not Wikipedia's job to reproduce, mirror or regurgitate ONS datasets as standalone lists. NebY (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep while the definition ONS uses is arguably primary its a secondary source for the places themselves and although there are many sources for places in England they will often have different definitions for different places/sources while this one is consistent for England even if the definition recently changed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's one of the few ONS geographic measures that captures unparished areas, which many towns are. Furthermore, the larger urban areas are subdivided into recognised cartographic areas by the UK's national mapping organisation, just because it doesn't match an administrative boundary (which is invisible on the ground anyway) doesn't mean it isn't valid. It's to give a snapshot of areas for very high level purposes, population stats of course don't remain static but it presents a reasonable idea of areas to readers. The Equalizer (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two distinct issues here.

On the one hand, we have the original ONS data release, which is a 100% WP:RS for the purposes you describe. It is not perfect in some details (what is?) but by looking closely at the mapping, the individual data lines and the covering narrative, a sensible list can be drawn up. Which is exactly what a secondary source, CityPopulation.de, has done here. They have managed to produce a sensible, credible list.
On the other hand, we have this article, which amplifies the errors in the ONS report. (It is not for nothing that the ONS have declared that henceforth they will leave physical geography to the experts at the Ordnance Survey).

Your objective is entirely satisfied by the original data source: you haven't explained what value this article has added. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really unsure as to why citypopulation.de would be more reliable than actual census numbers. SportingFlyer T·C 17:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article has all the same problems as the deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of localities in England by population. Its pretty much just a copy of it with updated data given a different name. Eopsid (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The objective of this article is, I assume, to present a meaningful, ordered table of population figures for named towns and cities in England (as in this article's original title) — something not provided by the data source, an ONS Excel spreadsheet; hence, there could be added value. However, the omission of Greater London sorely compromises this, because to the average reader it's likely seen as nonsensical. If there's a possibility we can fathom out a way round this shortcoming, I'd be looking to revise and keep, if we cannot, delete. The article can also serve as a navigational list to settlement articles and readers may want to use population as a means for selection; this does not necessarily require the notability of a standalone list. Rupples (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(2nd attempt at reply after losing last one due to a computer error creating human error grrrr)

What about using inner and outer London statistics from the "Population and household estimates, England and Wales: Census 2021" dataset[40] as they don’t fit in the district, county or regional list articles and don’t seem to have much municipal function. This could be in a section of its own above major and maybe also the key table with a little explainer. Both inner and outer London have populations above Birmingham so come in nicely above it.

Could add a second column with citypopulation.de statistics[41] if more than one source/viewpoint (since the site cites the ONS) is what some would like to have. Chocolateediter (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume most of the ONS BUA definitions do conform to what we regard as towns and cities, else there's a problem retaining the population figures in England settlement article infoboxes. Don't see why London Region can't be used [42] and London included — its the combined population of the London boroughs, which I suggest is the definition most people, at least in the UK, would associate as being London. The only other notes within the article where explanation seems to be required are Milton Keynes and Manchester. Are there others? "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind. No one seems to be challenging List of built-up areas in Wales by population. Readers will rightly wonder why we don't have an equivalent for England, should this be deleted. Rupples (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could easily explain why London is excluded from the data set, and include it maybe as a sub-heading, but I can't quickly find why it's excluded in a search, and in any case it's an editing problem, not a notability problem. SportingFlyer T·C 05:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but all those suggestions sound like WP:SYNTH to me. In regards to the List of built-up areas in Wales by population it has a lot of problems it uses two different definitions of built-up area because the ONS confusingly decided to use the same name for a different concept in the 2021 census. Eopsid (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Manchester note wasn’t really needed, It was only added it to prove a point with the Milton Keynes one as two users had problems with Bletchley being separate from Milton Keynes which it had also been separate for the 2011 census.

The explanation given by the ONS is:

"For the remainder of our analysis, we have removed London's 33 BUAs. This is because in Greater London, the method to identify BUAs does not recognise individual settlements in the same way. It instead provides data by London borough boundaries."

Which the ONS did pretty much do in 2011 and it went against analysis that the other areas had, they could have done some analysis though and I guess they might at a later date in a separate report. Chocolateediter (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is not a criticism of the ONS. It is a proposal to delete a list that is a poor summary of the ONS list, reinforcing its errors and failing to reproduce its many caveats. (At least the ONS has some awareness of its weaknesses and inconsistencies.) It adds no value to the ONS list, it subtracts from it. We are not helping readers; if we can't do better than this then we must back away and refer readers to the source.

The best secondary source available is CityPopulation.de but that option has been rejected. They at least treat Luton/Dunstable, Bournemouth/Poole and Brighton/Hove as physically contiguous units: the ONS claims to ignore administrative boundaries but has not consistently done so. CityPopulation also ignores the ONS's sloppy toponymy (carving chunks out of places like Reading and Milton Keynes, then applying to the remainder the name of the whole) to give a sensible population report for the English cities. CityPopulation digests and makes sense of the raw ONS report; this article merely reinforces its confusions.

The only way out of this mess that I can see is to prefer the CityPopulation data. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perception to state the ONS have made errors, not a fact. Neither the ONS data or CityPopulation figures will likely see agreement between interested editors for every one of their definitions, because neither set is produced to fit Wikipedia articles. The only set of population figures where there's probably no disagreement is for council area's with defined boundaries. Take Milton Keynes, which started the 'dispute' about this article, the 'best fit' figure for the population of Milton Keynes could have been the Milton Keynes BUA or the total of the Milton Keynes and Bletchley BUAs, but the editors of that article saw fit to define Milton Keynes as its larger urban area, so it's valid to include the agglomerated population. Luton has not been defined as 'Luton urban area including Dunstable and Houghton Regis' so it is not appropriate to link an agglomerated population figure to that article. Rupples (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the ONS uses the name of the whole as the name of a part, as it has done in the case of (at least) Milton Keynes and Reading, then that is an error. But that is why we don't use primary sources as it usually needs a secondary source to take the long view, as CityPopulation has done.

Again, it is not the purpose of this nomination to denounce the ONS. They remain a highly reliable source of primary data and its analysis. The question is only whether it is valid for Wikipedia to copy their spreadsheet, taking it out of its contextual analysis. Why? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We use primary sources for statistics all the time. Otherwise we wouldn't have any population information anywhere on the site. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY. We cite statistical sources and rightly so. The issue here (and in the other lists that have already been deleted for the same reason) is that it is not legitimate to create an article that is a selective copy of the source. As WP:PRIMARY says 1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
- I believe that editors found the 2011 ONS built-up areas were useful, but that their sub-divisions were arbitrary and hard to understand.
- Many of the 2021 "built-up areas" are similar to the 2011 sub-divisions, and are equally hard to understand.
- For example, the Dunstable built-up area in this list has a population of 34,500, while the Dunstable article gives the population of the parish as 40,699. Readers might think there are 6,199 people living in the rural hinterland of Dunstable. They would be wrong; almost all the area covered by Dunstable Town Council is built-up. A comparison of the maps [43] and [44] shows that the ONS has allocated a large part of eastern Dunstable to the Luton built-up area.
- The list article says "built-up area boundaries are defined and named by the ONS". The ONS documentation is hard to follow. However, it seems that the Ordnance Survey are actually responsible, and their site [45] includes a 2022 "Technical specification" (with a methodology that considers land-use and "the Settlement Named Area dataset" to decide which 25-metre cells to merge together) and a "Release Note" (which says "Using customer feedback, improvements have been made in the [April] 2024 release, by refining the definition of a Built Up Area") but no updated "Technical specification".
- If the list article is retained, it must have a better explanation that mentions ways in which a "built-up area" might differ from what you expect. Ideally this explanation should be based on secondary sources, but I would be content if a mole inside the ONS were to edit the article and explain what is happening.
- The article should also explain about the "Related places" (are they included within or excluded from the area) and tell readers where they can find a map of each area. Perhaps they can be referred to citypoulation.de. The ONS interactive map does not seem to know about built-up areas. JonH (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The places named in the second column of the table in the article were recently dewikilinked to our articles on the related settlements thus nullifying the argument for the article being a navigational aid to finding those articles. AFAIK most England settlement articles use built up area as best available fit for population, so why dewiklink and place a hidden instruction not to wikilink? Granted, there are a few exceptions where BUA is not the best fit, but those instances can and were being noted. It should not have resulted in a 'carte blanche' dewikilinking. Rupples (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the ONS BUA is the same as the settlement described in the article (which it often is not), then to wikilink it is a navigational aid over a precipice. We must not deliberately mislead our readers. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not with this article as such but with the choice of Infobox used in our settlement articles. Liverpool uses Template:Infobox settlement which allows more than one definition of population — two population figures are shown in that article's infobox. Milton Keynes on the other hand uses Template:Infobox UK place which limits population to a single field. Rupples (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The strong consensus at WP:WikiProject UK geography is to prefer and seek to transition to Infobox UK Place when possible. Apart from being more customised to UK political geography, it avoids the clutter and trivia invited by Infobox settlement. If a detail is that significant, it should be in the body. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Buckley[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were transactional announcements (1, 2) with a combined five-ish sentences of independent coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 16:45, 30 April 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) 16:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided: Sufficient room for expansion, but not enough coverage in current state. Mn1548 (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I was able to find this source, which I think is detailed enough be considered non-trivial, but it's a local media article, so it's pretty borderline. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transactional announcements such as signings and trades are not considered in-depth sourcing, especially when most of it is in quotes. JTtheOG (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:10, 7 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!} 23:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I lean to delete as not quite meeting notability guidelines but will support the consensus of the group of editors. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Yoruba Arts Festival (via WP:PROD on 6 September 2023)

Northern Ireland[edit]

Others[edit]

Scotland[edit]

Endure Pursuivant[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Other than mentions in databases of heraldry, I'm not seeing the level of RS needed to show that the standards of notability have been met. JMWt (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Clan Lindsay - no citations, ineligible for merging. BrigadierG (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Ridgers[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who has been attached to clubs at a higher level, but has never appeared above the (part-time) Scottish fourth tier. No evidence of significant coverage - the two references are to an article about his brother, in which he gets a passing mention, and a match report of a Highland League game. I have been unable to find much else other than this BBC article [[46]] about him joining Inverness Caledonian Thistle as loan back-up; he was a substitute for them in the SPL, but made no appearances. Jellyman (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Scotland. Jellyman (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montolieu Oliphant-Murray, 1st Viscount Elibank[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing the RS that show why this person would be considered notable against the inclusion criteria. He apparently has an painting in the National Gallery and entries in the directories of the peerage. But WP:NOTGENEOLOGY JMWt (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a member of the House of Lords, he is automatically notable. I have added the Hansard page for his appointment. He was an officer in the Royal Navy, but perhaps there were other reasons for his appointment as a Viscount. Also, his death was reported in the New York Times. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For others, it seems that the position in the House of Lords was hereditary and as far as I can discern from Hansard, this person never spoke in a debate. JMWt (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. Ingratis (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pre-reform peers were automatically members of the House of Lords, which was and is one of the Houses of Parliament, and so pass NPOL. Ingratis (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Viscount Elibank. This article is a genealogy permastub, in direct contradiction with WP:NOTGENEALOGY. While this individual does de jure pass NPOL, the lack of participation in any debate means that, de facto, he was not a member of the House of Lords. Saying he is "automatically notable" is the same type of argument that people would cling to when defending footballers who had 0 games played, but still passed WP:NFOOTBALL, which eventually doomed that SNG to death by RfC. I don't have access to the NYT obit, but I'm 80% sure it does not satisfy the significant coverage required by WP:BIO, and besides we'd need more than one source. Since the NPOL is an SNG, which explicitly allows for deletion (articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found), I think the GNG is a better metric for notability. I can at least find some debates where the 2nd Viscount was involved, but none for the first. I wouldn't vote delete or redirect on an active pre-reform Lord, but here we're very clearly lacking coverage. Pilaz (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the guideline you're looking for is WP:NOPAGE. Curbon7 (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject passes WP:NPOL as a member of the House of Lords, and thus is notable, but must still surpass the minimum requirements to maintain an article established at WP:NOPAGE. A cursory search on newspapers.com using this query returned a number of decent supplementary sources, including [47]. His obit here also helps fill in further biographical details. This obit contains some family info. British newspapers are generally poorly digitized on newspapers.com, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were more in other archives. There seems to be just enough to be sufficient. Curbon7 (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the additional biographical information is certainly welcome, sources 1 and 3 do not provide significant coverage of the subject and expand on the already present WP:NOTGENEALOGY problems of this article. Secondly, obituaries are primary sources, so keeping this article with only primary sources available goes directly against WP:PRIMARY #5 (which happens to be a policy). Notable people usually get significant coverage well after their death, so that's what I'd like to see to strike my !vote. Pilaz (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject passes WP:NPOL, so he is notable full stop. What we need is sourcing to expand on the article so it is not, as you say, a genealogy. These sources do that by providing key biographical details, such as the positions he held. These sources are not meant to provide WP:SIGCOV because the subject is already notable, they are meant to be supplementary sources to expand the article beyond the current genealogy perma-stub. Curbon7 (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this is one of the exceptions to the rule: someone who inherited a HoL seat and didn't participate in debates shouldn't be considered a politician. In the same way I don't think that every person appointed to national legislature inherits notability for the purposes of en.wiki. For example there are 3000 members of the National People's Congress and we do not assume every member meets the notability criteria there. JMWt (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Allum[edit]

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

Couldn't find significant coverage of him. I searched on newspapers.com for his name as well as "Albert Allum" and "Albie Allum" but no sigcov was found. Dougal18 (talk) 12:12, 14 May 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 May 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:59, 15 May 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.

MV Linga[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines. Only references are primary. No independent coverage online. Clear friend a ^💬 01:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. Kpg jhp jm 07:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't many references that can be used other the primary sources from the owner/operator of the vessel, there is also this one though: https://www.faktaomfartyg.se/linga_2002.htm

I don't understand how MV Linga is the only Shetland Islands Council ferry article that has been getting brought up for editor issues, despite it being the same layout and similar text style to the rest of the ferry articles that I have made.

It would also be better to be more explicit with which changes would be good as it doesn't make sense that you're not allowed to make an article using references to the owners website. ZetShip (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SIC Ferries. The most applicable guideline appears to be WP:NVEHICLES, which is an essay, and anyway pretty much defaults to WP:GNG for individual vehicles. Thus secondary sourcing beyond database entries would be needed here. Unfortunately the most I can find is a fairly routine news source [48]. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but unless more sources come up - such as an offline news feature on the vessel - as an WP:ATD I recommend redirect to SIC Ferries. ResonantDis_tortion 15:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grampian Flyers B.C.[edit]

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

This may meet a little notability but in the current state lacks sources. My research showed they are trivially mention in news articles and those, doesn't seem to be notability. Per SE, doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Redirect can also be better if there is any. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Basketball, and Scotland. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any potential redirects?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fáilte[edit]

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

Not sure if this violates WP:DICT (wikipedia is not a dictionary). While I see why we have Alba and éire, (Scottish Gaelic and Irish for Scotland and Ireland respectively) because it refers to a country, do we really need a dictionary for a specific world in another language? For anyone wondering, fáilte is the Irish word for welcome. JuniperChill (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Ireland, and Scotland. JuniperChill (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; make it more explicitly a disambig page. —Tamfang (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would turn it into a DAB, as Tamfang suggests. I concur with JuniperChill that it is not appropriate to keep as a dictionary-like entry, but since there are three Wikipedia pages containing the word, a DAB may be appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how turning it into a disambig would work since the only other pages containing the word are Fáilte Ireland and Fáilte Towers. This may be an example of partial title match, but I am not sure if people simply refer it to 'Fáilte'. JuniperChill (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair cop. I won't be too sad if the page is deleted. Cnilep (talk) 04:46, 15 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!} 16:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Nanetti[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This footballer, who seems to have never played in the top 3 tiers in Italy or top 4 tiers in England, was deemed non-notable in an AfD discussion in 2020. I can't find signicant coverage in reliable sources published since then that would suggest he is now notable – per WP:GNG, as WP:NFOOTBALL is obsolete. The article content is not the same as the version deleted in 2020, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. ^Complex/_Rational 17:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57] among many more English and Italian sources. Clearly siginifciant figure in English lower league football with extnsive career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of these sources, The Sun and Daily Mail are not considered reliable (deprecated, as documented at WP:RS/PS), and several others are blogs/tabloids which have similar shortcomings. Is there anything in more reputed sources such as BBC, Sky News, The Guardian, etc.? ^Complex/_Rational 20:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. seems okay, but not sure it's WP:SIGCOV, 2. per WP:THESUN, The Sun is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability, 3. very short, mostly quotes 4. short, mostly quotes, 5. a Wordpress blog – is the author a "subject-matter expert"?, 6. very short, mostly quotes, 7. short, mostly quotes, 8. one sentence mentions him, 9. per WP:DAILYMAIL, The Daily Mail is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability. So, of the nine sources you listed, one might be SIGCOV. Based on these sources alone, I don't see that Nannetti's a clearly significiant figure in English lower league football. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per @Das osmnezz. Svartner (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article fail WP:SIRS, and the sources listed above none are independent significal coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

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[edit]

Caemorgan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no clear notability. Pretzelles (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Pretzelles (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete If roads do not inherit notability from buildings that lie along them, they surely do not when it isn't even clear that building is notable. This is just a road for which no claim of notability is really made. Plus the coordinates are way off, which makes me suspect GNS as a source. Mangoe (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its an OS settlement rather than just a road or individual building. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - according to the historic (c. 1900) and contemporary maps in the List of Historic Placenames it would appear that Caemorgan is a settlement. It should be noted the article was originally started about the village, but an IP subsequently changed it to a road: diff. ResonantDis_tortion 18:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need more than a name on an OS map, though. If someone can find some other corroboration I'd be quite happy. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A handful of neighbors that live on a short street does not make a notable village. Would need substantive sources to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 02:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Everett[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The existing references are limited to chess databases that verify a moderately high ELO, trivial mentions in broader coverage of major chess matches, and a link to the subject's page as a for-hire language teacher. Google and Google News searches do not support widespread coverage in any reliable sources and the subject does not hold any FIDE titles BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 17:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Games. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 17:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note: Elo is a surname, not an acronym. ELO is a band. An Electric Light Orchestra rating of 2233 is not notable, that will get you into the world top 7000 if you count only active players. No notable chess achievements. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with @MaxBrowne2 above. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Rift[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG its WP:ALLPLOT and has been tagged for notability for 12 years Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Wales. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, for one, Illuminating Torchwood has a lot to say about the topic at various places, but usually calls it "the Rift" or "the rift" rather than the Cardiff Rift. Daranios (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Any chance you could add this to the article (and ping me)? There is a receptions section already, but sourced to a meh newspaper so far, and nothing else. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I've added what I had thought to from Illuminating Torchwood, tough there is some more, as can also be seen in previews of pages not available at Google Books. Daranios (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Thank you. Weak keep for me considering the current state of the 'reception and analysis' section. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Collecting further sources, shorter but still relevant are: Once Upon a Time Lord, pp. 129-130, "'You guys and your cute little categories": Torchwood, The Space-Time Rift and Cardiff's Postmodern, Postcolonial and (avowedly) Pansexual Gothic", and very brief but calls it "a key point in the mythology of Doctor Who during the Tenth Doctor era", this web article. Daranios (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That web aticle doenst count for very much. Valnet sources are not great for showing notability. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 12:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: I agree, was just listing it for future reference, useable as ScreenRant still counts as "reliable for entertainment-related topics". Might have phrased that better. Being convinced of the notability of the topic based on the other sources, I've gone ahead and added that to the article as low-hanging fruit. Daranios (talk)
Keep I believe the existing sources together establish notability. While there is currently an imbalance between plot and non-plot in the article, it is also not all plot, as I believe the criticism of the Cardiff Rift being a plot device for lazy writers is relevant despite being presented in a satirical manner. (The Register is considered a reliable source.) And these problems can be solved by normal editing with the listed sources. Daranios (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge: This isn't really a separate topic from the fiction itself. I do see some mentions in sources, but not enough to reach WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:25, 3 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!} 22:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The non-plot content has been expanded now since the beginning of this AfD. Daranios (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge. This is dictionaty-definition fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone: WP:Fancruft: "The use of the term ... is not a substitute for a well-reasoned argument based on existing Wikipedia policies." Daranios (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not if I was voting for deletion but its a valid argument for merging of redirecting. The article is fancruft; the topic can be adequately covered in a para elsewhere.TheLongTone (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Where should this be redirected/merged to? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between editors arguing to Keep this article and those advocating a Merge or Redirect but who have offered no target article so it would be impossible to carry out their recommendation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep this article needs a heavy rewrite but I feel there's enough to show notability, especially since there really isn't a viable merge target. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge target What about Wormholes in fiction? Keeping this ludicrous mass of cruft as a standalone article simply because of doubt as to where it should be merge/redirected to is lame beyond belief.13:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

TheLongTone, it's a real and practical concern. XFDcloser can't close a discussion as Redirect or Merge without a target article identified. It just can't be done if that is the consensus opinion. And there has to be agreement on what that target article is. That's how the software works. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Possibly List of Torchwood items? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge target as list of Torchwood items. I'd also support a merge to the main Torchwood series article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since the Rift is central to the premise of the show, wouldn't the actual main Torchwood article, where it is already mentioned throughout, be the better location to merge information on it to, rather than a spinout list article? Rorshacma (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely agree to either Wormholes in fiction or the main Torchwood article if a merge has to be done. The Rift also isn't mentioned at the List article, and isn't really an item per se. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

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] Eriksson, Maria; Fleischer, Rasmus; Johansson, Anna; Snickars, Pelle; Vonderau, Patrick (2019). Spotify teardown: inside the black box of streaming music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262038904.

[2] Chertkow, Randy; Feehan, Jason (4 September 2018). Making Money with Music: Generate Over 100 Revenue Streams, Grow Your Fan Base, and Thrive in Today's Music Environment. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 978-1-250-19209-7.

[3] Sadler, Nick (4 July 2021). The Label Machine: How to Start, Run and Grow Your Own Independent Music Label. Velocity Press.

[4] Eriksson, Maria; Fleischer, Rasmus; Johansson, Anna; Snickars, Pelle; Vonderau, Patrick (2019). Spotify teardown: inside the black box of streaming music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262038904.

[5] Chertkow, Randy; Feehan, Jason (4 September 2018). Making Money with Music: Generate Over 100 Revenue Streams, Grow Your Fan Base, and Thrive in Today's Music Environment. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 978-1-250-19209-7.

[6] Sadler, Nick (4 July 2021). The Label Machine: How to Start, Run and Grow Your Own Independent Music Label. Velocity Press.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

United Kingdom[edit]

Event Supplier and Services Association[edit]

Ahsan Akbar[edit]

Montolieu Oliphant-Murray, 1st Viscount Elibank[edit]

Logan Cousins[edit]

Literature of England[edit]

Golf Course News International[edit]

Earthsearch Mindwarp[edit]

No. 674 Squadron AAC[edit]

List of current yeomanry units of the British Army[edit]

88 (Arracan) Battery Royal Artillery[edit]

Interior Design Masters series 4[edit]

Interior Design Masters series 5[edit]

Interior Design Masters series 3[edit]

Cerebra (charity)[edit]

Alan Roberts (sailor)[edit]

No. 675 (The Rifles) Squadron AAC[edit]

Whiteshield[edit]

International Hobo[edit]

Ordo Aurum Solis[edit]

Candice Towler-Green[edit]

Nick Capstick-Dale[edit]

EMR Regional[edit]

Unzela Khan[edit]

Alfred Davis[edit]

List of television programmes broadcast by ITV[edit]

RouteNote[edit]

Schwein[edit]

Others[edit]

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

England[edit]

Conor Collins[edit]

Corinne Silva[edit]

Trey Farley[edit]

Bivesh Gurung[edit]

Jamie D'Souza[edit]

Tony Dyer[edit]

Logan Cousins[edit]

Lori Wells[edit]

Literature of England[edit]

Epsilon Telecommunications Limited[edit]

Stuart Bell (figure skater)[edit]

W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870)[edit]

Leigh Rogers[edit]

Jennifer M. Adams[edit]

Golf Course News International[edit]

Kamales Lardi[edit]

Harvey Whiteley[edit]

Relyon[edit]

Scarborough Rugby League Festival[edit]

TJ The Frenchie[edit]

Chris Heil[edit]

Joerg Stadler[edit]

Richard Beck (music manager)[edit]

Bert Allum[edit]

Leeds Rhinos–Wakefield Trinity rivalry[edit]

Brighton & Hove bus route 5[edit]

Brighton & Hove bus route 2[edit]

Brighton & Hove bus route 1[edit]

Brighton & Hove Breeze routes[edit]

William Sparrow Simpson[edit]

Candice Towler-Green[edit]

Uzma Beg[edit]

John Bartlett (racing driver)[edit]

Christian Nanetti[edit]

EMR Regional[edit]

Alley of the Dolls (band)[edit]

Unzela Khan[edit]

Bajirao's Konkan Campaign[edit]

RouteNote[edit]

India at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup[edit]

List of ONS built-up areas in England by population[edit]

Owen Buckley[edit]

Others[edit]