Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,413,863 edits
Line 19: Line 19:
== United Kingdom ==
== United Kingdom ==
<!-- New AFD discussions should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFD discussions should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HiSoft Systems}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pakistan_Act_1990}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pakistan_Act_1990}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frontbench Team of Jeffrey Donaldson}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frontbench Team of Jeffrey Donaldson}}

Revision as of 01:14, 18 December 2021

Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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

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

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


United Kingdom

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HiSoft Systems

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

No independent coverage. Was a business from 1980 to 2001, now a consulting brand for one of the founders. Multiple other software businesses of this name make searches difficult. Based on the article, Maxon Computer GmbH could be a redirect target, but that article doesn't (and needn't) mention this company. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piecesofuk: Thank you. There are a great number of search results to go through, and I personally can't comb through all of them to find ones that pass WP:SIGCOV for the company. Based on the search results you provided, I share Pavlor's concern that the products may be more notable than the company itself. (Advertisements do not warrant product notability, and product reviews must meet WP:PRODUCTREV). If multiple reliable independent sources about the company itself do not exist, the products' notability is not enough to keep the company's page in existence. If anyone has time to pinpoint in-depth coverage of the company from reliable sources, please share what you find. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from this company profile (mentioned above) https://archive.org/details/AmigaComputingIssue094XMas95/page/n31/mode/1up I can find plenty of product reviews in eg British magazines https://archive.org/details/cuamiga-magazine-072/page/n64/mode/1up US magazines https://archive.org/details/Antics_AMIGA_Plus_Volume_1_Number_1_1989-05_Antic_Publishing_US/page/n18/mode/1up French magazines https://archive.org/details/st-magazine-080/page/n33/mode/1up It's difficult tracking down news items using archive.org's search, but here's one https://archive.org/details/Atari_ST_User_Issue_088_1993-06_Europress_GB/page/n6/mode/1up where Hisoft are referred to as a "Top Developer" and the one from the British Newspaper Archive I mentioned above which refers to Hisoft as "one of the most respected software houses in the home computer field" in the Liverpool Echo on 9th November 1985 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000271/19851109/050/0006 Piecesofuk (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Piecesofuk. Unfortunately, product reviews are irrelevant in the discussion to keep/delete this company page. The BNA does not permit open access without creating an account, and brief mentions of the company are not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. The purpose of meeting WP:SIGCOV is to allow Wikipedians to write a whole article about a subject, per WP:WHYN, and if we cannot prove there is in-depth coverage about the company (not the software) to do so, the Wikipedia article about the company has to be deleted. My vote is Delete unless WP:SIGCOV can be proven for the company alone, not its products. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there appears to be difficulty sourcing much on-line info from the 1980s, but we should consider British Newspaper Archive per Piecesofuk's research. There are thousands of references in Archive.org and beyond, although it is a struggle to identify stuff that passes WP:SIRS from there. HiSoft adverts typically contain blurb about the company, and this tends to crowd out hits on more analytical pieces. The journalistic style of the time would typically not dwell on the organisations much, despite the significance of the products, so analytical pieces would be few. These issues mean that evidence may be difficult to compile. Chumpih t 04:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my opinion, the profile contained in the Amiga Computing magazine coupled with the mentions of the importance of this company's products in their own specialist fields and the fact that the age of this company means we must take WP:NEXIST into account pushes the topic company over the line. HighKing++ 11:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Act 1990

Pakistan Act 1990 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD. Original reason for PROD: "This is just a copy/paste of a statute, not an encyclopedia article." I don't think it's G12 for CSD because I think a British statute can be copied. Singularity42 (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Democratic Unionist Party#Party spokespersons at Westminster. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frontbench Team of Jeffrey Donaldson

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

I do not think that this particular group of people meets WP:NLIST. It appears to list every member of the DUP in Commons and declares them to be the frontbench team. I'm not really able to find in-depth sources that refer to the group of people in this way rather than referring them much more plainly by stating that they are the DUP members of the Parliament or as the various spokespeople. As a result, I'm inclined to redirect this article to Democratic Unionist Party#Party spokespersons at Westminster, where this can be covered in sufficient depth in the context of the DUP as a whole. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 14:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Morris (racing driver)

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

Unable to find much in the way of significant coverage of the subject of this WP:BLP, with this excerpt from the Motor being the most promising thing returned by a before search, with everything else being routine coverage in statistical databases. Such a search is complicated by the fact that "John Morris" is a fairly common name and the popularity of Morris motor cars. While I believe that this article's subject is fairly likely to be notable, unless somebody is prepared to scour libraries for forty-year-old issues of Autosport or Motor Sport then it is hard to verify anything about them beyond the fact that they competed in these events. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fosshost

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

Advertisement and fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Pretty much all primary sources and self reporting, no reliable sources available. Only claim to notability is a 10-day partnership with freenode (not notable both per WP:NINI and WP:1EVENT). Pretty much only self sources passing mentions, and page is a giant advertisement. Naleksuh (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, why would Fosshost advertise, since they're exclusively an open source project providing services to other foss projects, there is no commercial intent or gain for them having a page on wikipedia. The partnership with freenode was notable and caused significant interest from a large number of people, not to mention that they received support from another notable person which has an established page on wikipedia that has been on the wiki since March 2020 (which isn't even addressed in the page). The article can be improved and I will take on this task. The quality of the article is not if better quality than the SPI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software in the Public Interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.178.54.208 (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC) — 193.178.54.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Conflict-of-interest promotion of projects has little to do with for-profit status. There's plenty of advertisement, even paid spam, by non-profits. MarioGom (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom: Yeah, and I wasn't saying that Fosshost organization was advertising either, I said the page was an advertisement. Naleksuh (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Naleksuh was a member of the Fosshost community and was removed for their conduct. This user has a personal conflict of interest in the project and their work. Their disruptive behaviour continues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.245.117 (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC) — 82.132.245.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to England–Wales border. I find Peter's contribution the most persuasive in a discussion filled with not-strongly-held positions. Daniel (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Lost Lands

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

The page seems to be nothing but original research, lacks any clarity both official and significance. Also appears to be another form of "Border wars" with Wales lost this to England while England gained from Wales affair. The article would be better off being deleted as there is nothing about Welsh Lost Lands...DragonofBatley (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but consider moving it to something like Welsh irredentism and expand if possible. --Killuminator (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- The lost lands issue might make an appropriate section in England–Wales border. Welsh yearnings to return to ancient periods before Anglian conquest might be worth a fuller discussion somewhere. Certain border counties (despite being subject to the Council of the Marches in the Tudor and early Stuart periods were always part of England. The logic of what boundaries were adopted in 1536/42 is lost in the mists of time. The Welsh marches had expanded in the medieval period, partly by conquest in the anarchy of Stephen and partly by marcher lords claiming that border property was exempt from interference by the sheriff. These encroachments were reversed by the 1536 Act. I see little in this article that adds much to my target, except the alleged movement to reclaim lands. Another editor has drawn attention to a potential Whitehall blunder. The Wye catchment was in the days of Water Authorities the responsibility of Welsh Water and the Severn catchment of Severn-Trent Water (including parts of Montgomeryshire). I am not clear what happened on this when Welsh devolution was strengthened. Agricultural nitrate pollution of the Wye is however an active issue on which CPRE Herefordshire is organising research, in a volunteer-led project. This is a function of the direction in which rivers run, from Wales through England, not one of the extent of Wales. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to England–Wales border; overlaps with that topic. Sandstein 09:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William George Dolman

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

I can't find any indication of notability. I have searched Google proper, which comes up with a couple of for-sale sites, and three pages of Wikipedia mirrors and irrelevant results. JSTOR, Google News, Google Scholar and Newspapers.com return zilch. I'm afraid this may be a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It certainly seems to fail WP:V. I know very little about this topic, so I hope I'm wrong and sources are found by topic experts who serve me a fresh heap of trout because if I knew where to look it's easy. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia requires articles to have references, and this article doesn't have any. Catfurball (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Catfurball: please see WP:NEXIST. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't appear to be any reliable sources at all. Curiocurio (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 23:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Roulette (film)

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. There are no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a TV Guide link which shows no review and a Time Out link, which is a capsule review and capsule reviews are an example of what is considered "coverage insufficient to fully establish notability" per WP:NFSOURCES. The Film Creator (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old Roman Catholic Church in Europe

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

This denomination does not meet the WP:NCHURCH notability criteria, so I believe the article should be deleted.
The only secondary reliable source which describes this church is one from almost a century ago and which I have not been able to check. The other sources seem to be primary source. All I could find on this denomination is that it seems to have existed between 2011 and 2015 according to official UK data.
As a sidenote, one of the sources is a website titled Old Roman Catholic Church Latin Rite. Is this another denomination? Is it another name for the supposed "Old Roman Catholic Church in Europe" denomination? Veverve (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Peterkingiron. If this really is a larger denomination rather than an individual local church, some sources would need to be provided to establish that, and if so I could reconsider this recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There isn't much direct discussion of notability here, in terms of sources covering the topic. Valid concerns over the definitions used are met with reasonable arguments about the potential for improvement (and at least one !vote that is entirely devoid of substance). It's been long enough that I do not think a further relist will be helpful; if the problems of definition prove intractable, they will have more weight at a subsequent AfD. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings by United Kingdom settlement

List of tallest buildings by United Kingdom settlement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a mixture of Wikipedia:Synthesis and Original Research. Eopsid (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Another problem with the article is its lack of definition for settlement. There isnt really a formal and consistent definition in the United Kingdom anyway. Eopsid (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment -couldn't this be added to a general list of tallest buildings in the UK, as a sortable table column? to this page List_of_tallest_buildings_in_the_United_Kingdom Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems a perfectly valid list to me. No synthesis or OR here. Possibly rename to List of tallest buildings by town or city in the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is with the lack of definition for town or city or settlement in the UK. The list makes no attempt to define it rendering it meaningless. Eopsid (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fail to see why this is a problem. The terms town and city are very clearly defined in the United Kingdom, probably more than most other countries. I agree that there's no real reason to restrict the list to settlements with more than 100,000 people, hence my suggested renaming. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The list defines it as anything over 100K. In practice cities in england and wales are extremely well defined. Scotland slightly less so. Town is again well defined if perhaps not entirely logical due to local politics (there are a number of oversized villages but since no one has tried to add Cottingham this doesn't appear to be an issue).©Geni (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment: can you explain how English towns are well defined. Just thinking of Bournemouth as an example it has no good definition. It's part of a district with other towns but there is no formal definition for Bournemouth Town. The problem is that there are some well defined towns which are civil parishes but there are lots of towns which are in unparished areas and hence have no good definition. Eopsid (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • While Bournemouth appears to be one of the messier cases the Borough created by the 1890 Royal Charter continues to maintain a legal existence through the charter trustees.©Geni (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Exactly. You have to look at history as well. Any settlement that used to be a borough or urban district or which currently has a town council is without doubt a town. Although there are indeed others which are commonly referred to as towns but which have no legal basis for that claim. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: agree the definition does not make much sense in relation to any similar list. There are 65 entries, but the link used to define what is referred to as a settlement, ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom, defined only 46 areas; that had a higher cut-off of 150k rather than 100k, but then there is no source to define the 'missing' 19 - I haven't checked if the first 46 entries on the Tallest Buildings list matches, possibly not. There is also the fact that the ESPON list is now 20 years old. List of urban areas in the United Kingdom is more recent - published 2013 based on the 2011 census - and that has the same 100k cut-off, but has 76 entries! So based on that, we are missing 11. I feel that could be used to adapt the list and apply it more consistently than deleting outright, but it's not really something I'd be keen to volunteer for. Crowsus (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support moving to largest buildings in urban areas in the United Kingdom that has a better definition. I can do the work to move it too. Eopsid (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I support this idea, it would hopefully be fairly straightforward to align the entries here with the entries there, and 11 to be 'found' and added. I suggest using Emporis as a reference for the list of each area to demonstrate which is the tallest in each (particularly where no list of its own exists) but I'm not sure they work on any 'urban area' categorisation similar to the existing list here. So that would be verging into OR again to calculate which towns are in which area in a few cases (e.g the likes of Oldham, Wolverhampton and Bradford on the list would not be the tallest in their respective area)... Crowsus (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are actually hundreds of towns and cities in the UK, but only a few of them have buildings high enough to be worth recording. Every settlement on this list has town or city status. But clearly it's a work in progress. That does not make it an invalid list, as the whole of Wikipedia is a work in progress. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The criteria needs to be properly defined. As the nominator has pointed out, the term settlement is used but not clarified, and as I have highlighted above, neither the link used nor a more recent related list corresponds to the number of entries on this list. I would agree that it is something that can be overcome rather than evidence that it's fatally flawed and should be deleted, but the 'work in progress' doesn't wash. The article dates from 2010 and as only had minor adjustments and corrections since then. As you say, there are hundreds of cities and towns in the UK, so why does the article have 65 entries? There is no evidence that there are specifically 65 places of over 100,000 residents so why has that number been arrived at? There are 69 designated cities but several of those are ceremonial/historical with populations well below 100k, so again that doesn't tie in with the entries on this Buildings list. And where is the evidence that each of these buildings is the tallest in each place? Most have a ref simply for that building, and there are only 24 'List of tallest building in City' articles, so even assuming those are all correct and can be used as a guide, still 40 to be fixed. Again, not an insurmountable problem, but here we are at a deletion discussion so it's something that does have to be remedied because as things stand, the quality is poor. Crowsus (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a very useful article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - One of the for AFD today I have seen I definitely think ought to stay. Granted it is a list, but this is precisely the sort of random fact one may enjoy learning about in a 'random article' pop-up, or may be useful of its own accord. May warrant moving if someone can decide a more useful place, but it should definitely stay!Such-change47 (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and comment - I have some concerns about this, but on balance think it could be a useful article. I do however wonder about the name - settlement is very vague I think. Something like towns and cities with populations of over 100,000 might be better, though I am not sure what the best wording for that in a title would be without making it too long. Dunarc (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm happy it's kept, as the sort of interesting-trivia stuff that one expects to see in an Encyclopaedia, but I'm more concerned about the definition, taken from the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, which excludes church spires. Since nearly all churches in the UK have some sort of tower or spire, this stricture basically excludes all ecclesiastical buildings from the list, which seems very arbitrary. Why should a clock-tower on an otherwise rather short town hall qualify it as a tall building, while a substantial pointy bit on the end of a church, similarly equipped with a clock, doesn't? I personally feel that our readers, given an article on the tallest buildings, would expect to find the tallest buildings (not a somewhat shorter building that doesn't happen to be a church). Since the article is UK-based, and the Council is North American, perhaps the Council's definition doesn't really fit the UK's historical architecture. Or perhaps we should rename/move the article to Tallish-but-not-the-tallest-buildings by vaguely-defined area in the UK? Elemimele (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The arguments for keep largely rely on the article being useful or the article being random information that might be included in a pop-up encyclopedia. Both of which are true about this article; however, none of that means that this is not a result of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. I also am concerned about what the cutoff for this article would be, as in why is it at 100,000 specifically? I think that the indicated issues combined with wikipedia's standard for inclusion not being utility, but notability which lead me to my argument for deletion. snood1205 22:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I too am having problems with the qualifiers being tossed into this. First off, I must correct one misconception: the CTBUH criteria specifically and explicitly include spires, so I have to question whether the exclusion comes from. Second, there is the population limit, which, as others have noted, seems arbitrary. But besides that, half of this is like one of those clickbait things, and half of it is a database query. I do not see us have having a mission to satisfy either. If our point is to satisfy bar bet questions or slice up statistical data so, well, writing separate articles for each of the possible inquiries is a poor approach; but I do not think an encyclopedia as we have been writing it can address that mission in any case. Mangoe (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Mangoe, based on that, in case this list survives, I've replaced Norwich's city hall with its cathedral, a much taller building. Elemimele (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    More follow-up, my cathedral replacement got reverted on grounds that the lead excludes spires. Since, as Mangoe pointed out, this is an arbitrary exclusion that doesn't come from the purported source, should this list survive AfD, the lead needs to be changed either to distance itself from the Council on Tall Buildings criteria, or to adopt them properly, rather than misquoting them. The Council has three different criteria, basically height-to-architectural-top-excluding-antennae/flagpoles, height to highest occupied floor, and height-to-very-tip-including-twiddly-bits. I'd suggest we use (1) or (3), both of which include spires, as the highest occupied floor is unlikely to be documented in many cases, and even if it is, the Council haven't determined whether they mean the floor or ceiling of the highest occupied floor. If the list decides to go its own sweet way and ignore all "official" definitions, embracing arbitrary exclusions, then it should be deleted, as that would cross the line from encyclopaedic to random synthesis. Elemimele (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How accurate is the list? Is it kept updated? Altus House, Leeds doesn't yet get a mention, though its article asserts it to be the tallest building in Leeds / West Yorkshire / Yorkshire. PamD 16:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sienna X

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Earlier versions of the page have more content/refs, but still highly promotional and lacks CORPDEPTH. -KH-1 (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that a redirect would not be appropriate since this will not be mentioned at the target article per WT:PLANTS consensus. (See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddleja globosa 'HCM98017') Star Mississippi 20:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buddleja globosa 'Lemon Ball'

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

Consensus has been established via discussion at WP:PLANTS and previous AfDs/PRODs that individual cultivars are not presumed notable in the same way as natural species, and must meet GNG to have a standalone article. Database and commercial catalog entries (such as the citation to Buddleja List 2011-2012 Longstock Park Nursery) are not considered sufficient for this purpose.

I found no significant independent coverage of this cultivar. The content at Trees and Shrubs Online is a scant few sentences, and the entry in Stuart is little more. Aside from that, all hits I found were trivial mentions or commercial listings. There is not enough here to substantiate a GNG pass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • My concern about redirecting vs deleting is that since the cultivars are non-notable, they shouldn't be mentioned at the species article, and it's generally frowned on to have redirects that aren't mentioned in the target article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, should not be redirected. Anyone googling for Buddleja globosa Lemon Ball will automatically find the potential redirect target anyway, and if we do redirects for every non-notable variety of any ornamental plant we're going to have a truly enormous number of redirects with no useful value. Elemimele (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus at the WT:PLANTS discussion was not to merge, that is an inaccurate reading. I hope that the closer reads that discussion to confirm that. There are literally hundreds of named Buddleja cultivars per species including hybrids, so merging any of these articles to the parent would be lending totally undue importance to potentially a ton of content about non-notable topics. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to delete based on discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddleja globosa 'HCM98017' Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flynn Blackie

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

Fails WP:GNG Behind the moors (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I just added in four new article references about him, to further enhance questions on passing WP:GNG. (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC+3)
  • Delete. Repeated use of SEO/black hat paid sources and other junk does not help. The rest seems to be fairly trivial. I don't see the awards as being particularly notable. Kuru (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Trivial and primary sourcing abounds, including in my due diligence. The awards don't work towards notability. WP:TOOSOON. Missvain (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Claire

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

Nothing more than interview and PR if you read these non-reliable sources closely. Behind the moors (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2021-05 (closed as ✗ delete)
Logs: 2021-11 ✍️ create ← 2021-05 ✗ deleted
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The first AfD, in which her article was deleted, was seven months ago and very little has changed since then. She has a few new media features (e.g. [3], [4]), but they fall under the pattern of those discussed last time. She has friendly softball interviews and announcements that were most likely placed by management. If her music actually gets noticed by reliable entertainment reviewers she might just qualify for an article here in the future, but for now it's WP:TOOSOON, at least. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt to prevent speedy recreation until this passes WP:TOOSOON. Ifnord (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2021 (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.


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Paradise


Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also



England

IPXO

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

Unremarkable network services company, fails WP:CORP. Articles is sourced only by press releases and sponsored content, and I could find no WP:SIGCOV from reliable, secondary sources. Wikishovel (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which Medical Device

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

Fails WP:GNG. I almost tagged it for speedy deletion per WP:A7. Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Eaton (actor)

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

Non-notable actor; fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NACTOR. Roles have been minor parts. Sources are either primary (the actor's Instagram page) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of an upcoming supporting role in a single episode of an Outlander spinoff. BEFORE search turns up no WP:SIGCOV to support GNG. Contested PROD so bringing to AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warm Dust

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

The sources listed here provide little more than WP:ROUTINE coverage of the band. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might look again later but there's this (page 13) in Disc and Music Echo. A lot of what I'm finding merely mentions the band once. toweli (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Toweli, Hi thanks for the Disc and Music Echo "Warm Dust `back' Lennon" article link. That got me searching and I've found a few more articles now. I found the Record Mirror, October 9, 1971 article "Warm Dust slam the British mass media" on page 23, Melody Maker, July 25, 1970, News in Brief, Warm Dust section, Page 35, Melody Maker, May 1, 1971 "No Dust on peace show" article on Page 4, and the Melody Maker, January 30, 1971 article, War, Peace and Warm Dust article by Andrew Means on Page 11. So we have five articles on the group plus there's other stuff in newspaper archives that I can't access. One has to subscribe to them.
    Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; in response to my above comment defending Karl, I note again that WP:NMUSIC is not absolute (conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept). Aside from the stunt with Pope John, this band seems to be a footnote in the Paul Carrack story; I can't find anything usable for WP:GNG purposes, nor even WP:RS that go into enough depth for me to think this article should stick around. An article should never have to rely on unreliable blogs or be composed of facts from a bunch of miscellanious stray mentions in RS, which is all this band has. Mach61 19:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin, Even though I believe there's enough on Warm Dust to warrant a keep, could I ask please that if a consensus eventually leans towards a deletion, you might consider the option of redirecting rather than deleting? This way we can preserve the history and links. There are a number of possibilities. There is Paul Carrack in his Career section, Ace, and there's Alan King etc. Thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Karl Twist we can't really do that, see WP:XY Mach61 12:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or redirect--He's always been dismissive of them, but brief mentions of the band have appeared in RS on Carrack for five decades. A 1982 Rolling Stone profile mentions that their "major [sic] to fame was a psychedelic antiwar LP". The only early 1970s things I found were short articles or reviews in Kensington and Chelsea News, Daily Post (Liverpool), and The Oregon Journal. Caro7200 (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the sources linked by Karl Twist. toweli (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Diocese

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

Lacking secondary sources. Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT. There is no way that individual dioceses of the fringe Free Church of England are individually notable. AusLondonder (talk) 15:13, 24 August 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) 15:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid split from a notable main article it does not have to pass WP:ORGCRIT in my view. In any case WP:NCHURCH specifies that passing WP:GNG is enough, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very generous reading of NCHURCH which states that religious organisations "must meet the notability guideline for organizations and companies or the general notability guideline or both". Nevertheless, can you explain how this meets GNG? Where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? It's certainly not there now. AusLondonder (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There should probably be an SNG on this but dioceses and other middle judicatories of major church traditions (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) are almost always viewed per se as notable, even without secondary sourcing (see AfDs from 2019, 2018, 2018, 2012, 2007, 2007). (The only "delete" results for a diocese that I've seen were for a tiny splinter group with no sourcing available at all or for an apparent hoax.) This isn't a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; there's precedent established in the discussions resulting in a long series of "keep" decisions for dioceses, and editors in those debates referred to previous precedent as well. Separately from this precedent, there is WP:SIGCOV for the FCE's Southern Diocese: see the Telegraph, Anglican Ink, PCN, and an encyclopedic entry in the Encyclopedia Americana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Each article needs to be judged on its own merits, not false claims to inherent notability. This is particularly the case for a minor, fringe organisation like the Free Church of England. To equate the FCE to the Catholic Church or the Anglican Communion is simply ridiculous. The Telegraph article is absolutely not significant coverage of the Southern Diocese specifically. AusLondonder (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I !voted above, I do think based on longstanding precedent "keep" is the community default for this sort of article, but I would accept "merge" as an alternative based on the size of the diocese (and considering that had it been up to me I would not have created free-standing pages for the FCE dioceses in the first place). Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per longstanding precedent that dioceses of established church organizations are typically treated as presumptively notable, provided that they actually have more than just a collection of people holding meetings in their living rooms. The diocese is admittedly rather small. But I think it passes our customary threshold. This has been the WP:COMMONSENSE approach to these articles for as long as I can remember. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Diocese" of a small splinter group consisting of eight churches. No significant coverage. No notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C. (Superleague Formula team)

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

Same case to past nominations - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada SailGP Team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acceleration Team China

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, like the XFL. Like the ill-fated American football league, the teams collapsed with it. Unlike that league, it lived without fanfare and died without an embarrassing death, witnessed by nobody but a Wikiproject taskforce that existed for creating articles like this. However, the teams operating it maybe is notable.

Going straight onto the nomination, this amongst all articles about the other teams in this series serves only to appeal to the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago, so is anybody going to care about its existence? Checking on the internet per WP:BEFORE turns out mainly articles about the short-lived series beside one article by a hobbyist website run by students (Merseysportlive), this offers nothing new as its content is plagiarised from this page. Britsonpole is another hobbyist site - this look as if it is regurgitated from press releases.

Speaking of the WP:RS in this article; sources are announcements of driver signings, a WP:ROUTINE occurrence in Autosport in addition to race reports, another routine occurrences. The one by BBC Sport is another announcement of a team entering the series. Overall, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance (WP:SIGCOV) are pretty thin.

Overall, this like all the teams linked to football teams, may pass WP:GNG in 2008 when notability guidelines was lax, but will it in 2024? SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT sums this up, you are right with A1GP though. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amel Rachedi

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

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

Zoe Gardner (migration expert)

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

All edits are by this obvious agency - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Starklinson

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

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

  • Delete - as above, clearly promotional content relating to a non-notable person. Furthermore, use of “expert” in disambiguation in article title clearly biased and inappropriate. Elshad (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very clear cut case of a non-notable person. Badharlick (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, this should be on LinkdIn, not a supposed encylopædia. It’s essentially an advert for a self declared “expert” fishing for media appearances. 141.195.160.217 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was only created in August 2023, her media appearances long predate that - this[9] is from 2015. I think it's important that media pundits have articles, it enables everyone to easily look at their credentials and assess their motivations. Orange sticker (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, Wikipedia policy does not care about your opinions on how you think the world ought to be. Badharlick (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly not autobiographical as has been alleged - the creating editor, @Starklinson:, although they have chosen to remain as a redlinked editor without a userpage, has created and edited a wide range of articles over seven years (in contrast to the nominator of this AfD who appears to be proposing this AfD as their first edit). Appears to be a notable expert in the field, cited in many sources. The disambiguation, needed to distinguish her from Z G (actress), could perhaps be "(migration specialist)" to avoid any perceived subjectivity in "expert", so perhaps Keep and move. PamD 08:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with all this including altering the title.Orange sticker (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PamD, I'm thinking this discussion could end up as being a no consensus outcome. What do you feel about (refugee advocate) as the disambiguation? TarnishedPathtalk 12:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TarnishedPath Not sure about "advocate". She describes herself on LinkedIn as "migration policy specialist". I think I'd still go with "(migration specialist)", which covers a wider range of activity than "advocate" but avoids the possible puffery of "expert". The category Category:Experts on refugees, which was created in 2015, is slightly odd, with no parent category in a "people by occupation" tree. It's difficult to find a descriptor which fits someone employed in a field, rather than various "activists" categories or disambiguators. PamD 18:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no evidence she is a migration 'specialist' or expert. This appears to be a confusion of one sided activism with actual non-partisan knowledge. Working for a pro-immigration ngo for asylum seekers is hardly expertise and this characterisation favours open border policy which is contentious in the public realm. Must be deleted and replaced with something like 'activist' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A10:D582:D18:0:AC59:B40E:AD1E:937B (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep surprised to see this as I recognised the name immediately, has appeared regularly on news programmes and is referred to as an expert as references and news search show. Orange sticker (talk)
  • Delete: Per WP:NOTRESUME. TarnishedPathtalk 10:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed how this was nominated by, and many of the votes are by, new users who have made no other contributions to the project so searched Twitter and it seems the subject of this article made a tweet yesterday that received a lot of attention and then Twitter users brought attention to her Wikipedia page. I've looked to see if there is an appropriate template to flag this AfD but can't find one, but it seems to be this has been nominated in bad faith Orange sticker (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting that we don't allow a brand-new editor to create an article in mainspace, but we do allow them to create an AfD. Perhaps this should be reconsidered? PamD 11:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PamD and @Orange sticker, I've added a {{notavote}} notice. However, I must note that the first and third editors to !vote delete after nomination are editors who have been on Wikipedia 19 years and 9 years respectively, so while there are some IPs voting and the article was nominated by a very new user, I don't think it's completely accurate to state that many of the votes are by new users. TarnishedPathtalk 12:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TarnishedPath Yes but: did you see the editing history of the 19-year editor? 4 edits since 2019, of which one to their user page, one to their talk page. Not a very active editor. The 9-year editor does seem to be a regular contributor on a range of topics. PamD 13:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I do agree that it's highly unusual when a day old account makes such a nomination and then is followed by some IPs participating, I really don't think that's enough to make judgments about longstanding editors regardless of their recent history. TarnishedPathtalk 13:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think rather than back or forth about who is editing perhaps engaging with the substance here would be preferable - to qualify as an ‘expert’, you would presumably need well read academic publications and so on. Every Think Tank employee in the U.K. doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, even if they are occasionally cited in the press. The subject has no published books, academic papers, etc; this is clearly below the threshold of noteworthy-ness. Plus the article is promotional in tone and I strongly suspect some connection, financial or otherwise, between the main editor and the subject 2A01:CB06:B852:BE75:69B1:C245:F364:C83B (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Activity level is not a requirement for a users vote to be considered legitimate. I find your arguments in this discussion to be highly suspect in their motivation, as you appear to be attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the vote rather than participating in the actual discussion. Badharlick (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is extremely bad etiquette to assume bad faith as you are. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, provided they follow the rules set out in the policy. It does not exist for cabals of users to gatekeep others from contributing. Badharlick (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thank you, @PamD:. I only put (migration expert) because I didn't know what else to call her - that's how she's often referred to by the British press. I don't think 'expert' is necessarily biased, it just means she's done significant research on the topic. And I don't think 'activist' quite fits. However, if anyone has a better idea for the title, I'd be open to that. – Starklinson 13:13 UTC
    • ALSO, Wikipedia has a category Category:Experts on refugees, suggesting the language of 'expert' is not considered too partial for Wikipedia. I would also like to make it very clear that I have never received payment for my work on Wikipedia, nor have I ever made a page for someone as a favour. I know none of these people personally. – Starklinson 21:43 UTC
  • Delete: Appears in various media as a subject expert, but I don't find much coverage about this person. Source 2 is a "30 under 30 list" in a PR item. The BBC sources is an interview where she talks about things. Source 14 is ok-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about source 1? Starklinson (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an interview with/about her, not terrible but not nearly enough. Generally don't count for RS as they are primary. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of the provenance of this article, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Awards are WP:MILL (a trade pub's 30 under 30), and the rest of the sources are WP:INTERVIEWS (which do not contribute to notability), WP:ROUTINE coverage of organizations she works for and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. No obvious redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly agree with this. Badharlick (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could draftify be an option? – Starklinson 13:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starklinson, draftification is generally for newish articles, not for ones which have already been around for a year and haven't demonstrated that they meet our notability guidelines in that time. See WP:DRAFTNO. TarnishedPathtalk 06:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Oaktree b and Dclemens1971. It also does read somewhat like a resume. Flyingfishee (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As PamD explains, the accusation of autobiography doesn't hold water. And while some of the sources are interviews or trivial, there are multiple sources that are prose (not interviews) and that focus on Gardner as a person (are not trivial). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those articles constitute WP:SIGCOV. They are WP:ROUTINE coverage of her in her capacity as an employee of her organization. The National article in particular is primarily composed of her quotations. The only material we could extract on her encyclopedically is that she worked for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love Brand & Co.

AfDs for this article:
Love Brand & Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This promotional article was refunded after soft deletion with a promise from a quickie-autoconfirmed SPA that "I have gathered a few new sources to support the article." However, a week later, the article is untouched, and this subject still fails WP:NCORP. The sources are a mix of primary sources, promotional fluff, sponsored content, trivial mentions, user-generated content, interviews, and churnalism -- none of it WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Hello. I apologize for the very delayed response. There was an unexpected delay on my end, and I forgot to update the page as mentioned. I have just updated LOVE BRAND & Co. with additional references as promised. Please check it, and hopefully, you can move it to the draftspace instead of deleting it. Thank you. QuincKristoffer (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The added sources are absolutely not WP:SIGCOV. A "Forbes contributor" blog post is not a reliable source, and the other three added sources (Grazia Daily, the Independent and Evening Standard) are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of this brand in lists of capsule product reviews. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are some more sources andd although at this point I make no comment about whether they meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability, I hope we can at least be consistent in our approach to evaluating sources that meet GNG/NCORP.
  • Kensington Mums website has extensive information on the background to the company and says "Since day one, LOVE BRAND & Co. has been donating a percentage of revenue – not profits to protecting the natural world. Every year, LOVE BRAND & Co. supports and works closely with remarkable conservation charities and foundations, helping ensure the survival of some of the most vulnerable species and habitats on earth." and "The collections are 100% vegan and produced in Europe using the finest organic and recycled fabrics. The brand has grown into a global lifestyle brand..."
  • Drapers website also provides information on the company and their prospects and says "Positing a branded offer on making a link with charity has a relatively long history for brands, but an entire shop founded on the notion of giving a portion of the sales to selected causes is more unusual. To make this proposition viable, ticket prices have to be high - operating costs in this part of London tend to be on the high side and if 5% of the value of sales is going to charities, then volume may also have to form part of the equation."
  • This in Tempus Magazine says "Since its launch in 2010, Love Brand has become the go-to summer lifestyle brand for the discerning male shopper, drawn as much by its clever, colourful prints and comfortable fit as its strong eco credentials. The collections, which include classic linen shirts, T-shirts, shorts and trousers, are 100% vegan and produced in Europe using the finest organic and recycled fabrics. The label’s best-selling swim shorts (for men and boys) are made entirely from recycled plastic."
  • This in FashionBeans says "The founding concept of the brand, which was launched in 2011, was to deliver “fashion for the love of elephants”. With this motto in mind, not only does Love Brand & Co. offer luxury beachwear to fashionable men, but the brand also donates 5% of its sales to elephant conservation, supporting select elephant charities: Elephant Family, The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust and Tusk Trust."
  • This written by Editorial Staff of Authority Magazine says "Founded by Rose and Oliver Tomalin, Love Brand & Co. is a sustainable luxury resort and swimwear brand that not only creates exceptional, stylish garments but also seeks to protect the environment. A certified B-Corp that has since day one been donating 1% of revenue, not profit, to charities around the world and protecting an amazing array of endangered species and wild landscapes, Love Brand & Co. has been redefining beachwear with a greater purpose."
  • [https://uk.news.yahoo.com/best-sustainable-fashion-brands-put-154733541.html This in the Evening Standard" says "Love Brand & Co. was founded by Oliver Tomalin in 2010 with a commitment to protecting endangered and vulnerable wildlife. Members of 1% For The Planet, the brand donates a percentage of annual net revenue to fund worldwide projects that promote human-wildlife coexistance, as well as donating products to communities as a gesture of thanks for their important role in ensuring a future for endagered wildlife - at the moment, they’re working with families in the Assam region in India who help with elephant conservation."
The above is extensive SIGCOV coverage in reliable sources which go beyond trivial mentions. Although some of the articles are based on interviews, they also contain sufficient content which does not appear in quotes. My initial thoughts are that none of these meet GNG/NCORP but perhaps others can check. HighKing++ 15:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing Quick comments:
  • KensingtonMums is a blog and thus a WP:SPS; not reliable.
  • Drapers is a fashion industry WP:TRADES publication, which are generally not considered sufficiently independent.
  • The Tempus source is WP:INTERVIEW-based and thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.
  • As a product review FashionBeans appears to offer WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS.
  • The Authority Magazine link is dead and not archived so I can't review it.
  • The Evening Standard link is a mention in a longer list, not WP:SIGCOV
Thus I agree with you, with one exception, these do not contribute to WP:NCORP, the governing standard -- we need more to keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like delete, but a little more discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Brudenell, Countess of Cardigan

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

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

Keep - I can't deny that we don't (or I don't) know much about the countess, but she was a Lady of the Bedchamber, for which we have a category. I feel we're a bit dismissive of female roles in society in past centuries, and that's one of the many reasons Wikipedia's gender balance is poor. Deb (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of agree with Deb. She had a relatively notable role in court. I wish someone with more knowledge or expertise could step forward and improve the article a little bit. Keivan.fTalk 11:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But all three of us know that which role she held (and only for a few months, if I may add) is not what determines encyclopedic notability. The criterion (WP:GNG) is whether she has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So far I do not see evidence of significant coverage. I also think that having a biography with 95% of its content being who the subject's parents, husband, children, and brother-in-law were is not doing much at all for the state of women's biographies on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-) You don't think that having all those children was an achievement? Deb (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can cite a historian who considers it an achievement, please do. Surtsicna (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can measure a woman's level of notability by the number of children she has given birth to. But if indeed it was a notable achievement then one can cite a source and include the relevant info! Keivan.fTalk 21:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Deb Killuminator (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Killuminator, could you please explain how Deb has demonstrated that the article passes WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject")? Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The way the article itself is written does not make the subject look notable enough. As nominator explains, writing about the subject's parents, husband, children, and brother-in-law, etc., does not make her notable enough for a standalone encyclopedia article. The subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Prof.PMarini (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Trying to search on newspapers.com [10] but i can't access. 58.136.119.76 (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, and because she was the central character of a notable painting, England: Richmond Hill, on the Prince Regent's Birthday. Women of her time and station had a lot of influence without any formal power. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC) P.S. I added fascinating information about her family connections to the Charge of the Light Brigade and other famous descendants in British history. Bearian (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm very conscious of the need to address the gender imbalance on Wikipedia, but it should be achieved by focusing on women scientists, doctors, engineers, activists and leaders. Not by keeping an article on someone who fails WP:NBIO that is virtually entirely describing a woman through the context of her husband, brothers, father and many children. Frankly, that's an insult to the goal of improving women's biographies on Wikipedia. This is a textbook case of WP:INVALIDBIO: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability." AusLondonder (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

AFC Crewe

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

Previously deleted article. Per sources in article and what I could find, still fails WP:GNG/WP:NORG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shame i'd have thought a bbc article aswell as the league its in having its own wikipedia page(a previously stated condition on the previous deletion) as well as multiple other teams in the same league having their own pages would have given it the merit you deemed warranted? Can you elaborate specifically on why AFC Crewe do not merit a page but say Lichfield City F.C. - Wikipedia do?
Thanks Iblethebible (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see "What about article x?" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Iblethebible (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example the intralinks inside wiki with Gary Taylor-Fletcher - Wikipedia certainly give it more merit. He is an ex professional player at the highest level in England and is now a professional manager managing the team AFC Crewe Iblethebible (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Committee for a Workers' International (2019)

Committee for a Workers' International (2019) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of WP:ORG notability. All sources I can find are primary or written by non-independent publications. Notability is not inherited from other organizations it is affiliated with. C F A 💬 20:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. There appears to be no substantial reliable sources to warrant the meeting of notability for a separate article for CWI (2019). The matters related to the implosion/split can be adequately documented on the article for CWI (1974) which does at present appear to meet notability. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Deletion of this page is in effect a request to, in some form (even minimally as a sentence or two, in proportion to notability of any sources), merge it with Committee for a Workers' International (1974). A closely related, but not exactly the same, discussion was held at [11]. That discussion was immediately after the split and was somewhat of a compromise, and left the door open for this discussion here. I think merging today is probably right. (note: I have disclosed a COI). Golightlys (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also previous discussion on the same topic, again from immediately after the split.
[12] Golightlys (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't anything to merge. The article content is already covered under Committee for a Workers' International (1974)#Split. It looks like this article just copied that section. C F A 💬 16:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA That's my work. I've tried to create a consistent section on the split using what independent and reliable-seeming sources are available and put that on all three relevant page (CWI, CWI 2019, and ISA). Previously there appeared to be at least some COI editing where the narrative was different depending on the page. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a complex issue which needs careful consideration. It cannot be taken in isolation.
Thanks to CFA for raising the issues here.
Firstly, let's look at some ground rules first, in more detail.
The point that notability is not inherited from other organizations it is affiliated with is certainly applicable.
Primary sources:-
However, are we clear that *if* an organisation is notable, then primary sources are not only allowed but quite important?
What a political party says its policies are is a critical part of reporting in wikipedia about that organisation, whilst if these are contradicted by media reports or other sources, then that would have to be added to maintain objectivity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources
Quote: ""Primary" does not mean "bad" -- "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD
So there is some application of this to the use of Marxist.net, but that still leaves the objection of lack of notability, which I'll return to in my third point.
But I just want to add that almost the entirety of the Socialist Party (England and Wales) has been removed (60k bytes or more) on the basis of it being based on primary sources stating "Almost entirely self-published sources" and I think this is an oversight, considering this type of edit, given that the SP is notable.
We can discuss this on the relevant pages as soon as time permits, e.g. the Socialist Party (England and Wales) talk page, etc, but I do think wholesale deletions of this fashion should not be undertaken without some reference on the talk page first. It would be best if the sections deleted were restored first, and then a discussion on improving them could take place. I don't want to get into an edit war, and am happy to discuss further.
Secondly, the organsation, Committee for a Workers' International (2019) itself and how we got here:
It is clear that the Committee for a Workers' International (1974) got into a faction fight, and this spread into the Wikipedia page, with an edit war.
I haven't read through the whole thing, but it appears a consensus was reached, and a second Wikipedia page was created: the Committee for a Workers' International (2019).
But it seems to me that after all the smoke cleared from the wholesale rift in the CWI, it remains smaller but in all essentials the same organisation through from 1974 to today, so that ultimately it was perhaps premature to go through all that renaming and forming the 2019 wiki page etc.
Hence, War of Dreams argues for a merger. Presumably, to rename the 1974 site "Committee for a Workers' International".
I would have argued the same, but in practice, will the editors of the 1974 page agree to this? I think it is unlikely.
So therefore, any new material posted to the site which pertains to the CWI post-2019 (such as media reports, etc) could be the source of another edit war.
And I'm not at all sure that it is good Wikipedia practice to attempt to force the editors of each page to accept an overturning of their compromise, given that I am sure it is still fresh in their minds.
So that's why I think we keep it for now.
In summary:
1. Respect the consensus reached by the editors of both pages.
2. Recognise that the Committee for a Workers' International is notable, even if going through a decidedly rough patch over the last few years.
3. See if the CWI is mentioned in relation to any of the sections, such as the Nigeria section, which was facing arrests again I just saw.
4. Move to a merge of the two, 1974 and 2019, as soon as is thought feasible.Andysoh (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this demonstrates how this organization is notable? You basically said "the article should not deleted because primary sources aren't bad and the organization is notable". Yes, primary sources are allowed, but they are completely useless for establishing notability, the main issue being discussed at AfD. There isn't anything to merge either. The article is already covered under Committee for a Workers' International (1974)#Split. Since Committee for a Workers' International (2019) is not notable, Committee for a Workers' International (1974) doesn't need disambiguation and can be renamed to Committee for a Workers' International if desired. I wouldn't have brought this to AfD if I didn't think it should be deleted. C F A 💬 14:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Following CFA's proposal above. There should be one article titled Committee for a Workers' International and a paragraph or two mentioning that a few organisations that split off continue to claim the name. Those organisations themselves are not notable. Yue🌙 06:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So to be clear then, this is overturning the Feb 2020 decision [13]. Which I'm not necessarily against, but there were reasons for it. Has anything changed since then? Golightlys (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Golightlys I tried to make sense of that discussion and it looks like it was moving CWI to CWI (1974) unless I'm mistaken, so isn't impacted by this merge. As long as it's clear there was a split in 2019 and there's a non- notable organisation still called CWI and a questionably notable organisation called ISA (I'm going to take another look at that group's article and see if it really meets notability) then it's not really overruling that decision.
In terms of what's changed, not much but I think that's the question this discussion resolves because it seems that CWI (2019) was mostly created to try and resolve a dispute rather than meet policy. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence, but I'll defend that it worked! :P With a larger number of more experienced neutral(ish) editors watching the page, and tempers having cooled since 2020, hopefully that keeps the drama in check and we can afford to be more encyclopedic this time round. Golightlys (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that sounds suspiciously coherent. Clearly @Golightlys is an ISA plant Comrades! Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was not about notability. It doesn't even mention it once. Editors are free to split pages however they like, but that does not change the fact that this organization isn’t notable and its page may be deleted at AfD. C F A 💬 16:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to section of the 1974 article; I think that the solution that makes the most sense here, (I'm not checking the sources and assuming there is not enough sourcing for notability as claimed above) is to add a "Successor organizations" section and have subsections for both successor organizations, treating them equally. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with CFA. The issue is a lack of notability. Axad12 (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per CFA, the split out organization has no evidence of notability, it doesn’t meet the Primary criteria, WP:ORGCRIT. The information in the article has already been provided in the article of Committee for a Workers' International (1974). Nihonjinatny (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I agree with the deletion of this stubb page.
"Committee for a workers international (2019)" is a term which only exists on Wikipedia.
In 2019 the CWI split and there were temporarily two organisations which claimed to be the CWI. But one of them renamed themselves in 2020 to "International Socialist Alternative" - an organisation which is now in the process of splintering.
They claim that the CWI leadership acted undemocratically in seizing control of the resources of the CWI despite being a minority on the leading body (the IEC). Others claim that the CWI leadership expelled the majority members https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1262/taaffe-expels-his-majority/ .
But they do implicitly recognise that the CWI still exists - for instance the ISA recently condemned a member of their Austrian section for "rejoining the CWI".
An examination of the history of the CWI website does give some evidence of political and organisational continuity over the past two decades https://web.archive.org/web/20240000000000*/https://www.socialistworld.net/ . Since the foundation of the CWI in 1974, there have been various splits, in 1991 with the IMT, in 2000 with the SSP, and in 2019 with the ISA and several others. But the organisation and its leadership remain substantially as they were. We can argue about whether the current leadership are right or wrong, legitimate or illegitimate. But nobody outside of wikipedia argues that they exist or what they are called. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Rowley (writer)

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

Help! Can't find any reviews of the Beatles books written by this guy, hence failing WP:NAUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two sigcov reviews of his books on ProQuest. 1 for Beatles For Sale, 1 for All Together Now. That's not quite there but I can't do an in depth check now - however, it's not nothing. I will vote after I have done a better check. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does one of the ProQuest articles include a review from The Spectator? A review for All Together Now shows up in Google Search, but it's a dead link and not archived from what I can tell. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Significa liberdade Yes, that's one of them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: Is the other the review in Goldmine? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Significa liberdade Yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Ivo Steel

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

Aside from dying in World War I, this player does not seem to rise to WP:NCRICKET. I already removed some information about his brother and his mother, as they lacked sources. The article is looking pretty bare at this point. Hornpipe2 (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Hornpipe2 (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete: Found a book describing him as a "first class cricketeer" [14] but it's barely a few paragraphs. This is also a brief mention [15]. Just don't have enough on this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mentioned in plenty of book sources, in quite some detail. AA (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where, we don't have any listed? Oaktree b (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Final Wicket: Test and First Class Cricketers Killed in the Great War (which I have) goes into great detail on him. Wisden has an obituary on him in its 1918 edition, which also goes into a good degree of detail. I'd imagine there's coverage in newspapers from the time too, The Times certainly mentions him following his death. AA (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all fine and I appreciate the additional resources added, but, does that still make him a "notable" player in the eyes of WP:NCRICKET? I'm hardly knowledgeable of cricket, does
    "he represented Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and also Middlesex in two first-class matches in 1912."
    counts as "Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation"? Hornpipe2 (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NCRICKET goes on to say "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." Playing for Middlesex in first-class cricket counts as "the highest domestic level", so it depends on whether he has "sufficient coverage". Going by what AA has written, he probably does. JH (talk page) 08:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined toward keep here, although the very worst case situation would be a redirect to List of Middlesex County Cricket Club players with a note added to include the reference detail. There's a Wisden obituary with some detail and I would be surprised if there weren't other obituaries - Eton, The Times etc.... Given his family and status this seems very, very likely - I'd suggest that with any war death that a significant BEFORE should really take place as there's often a scad load of detail out there and as a person he would appear to me to be clearly notable in terms of the sorts of things we'd look for. The book that is referred to above is usually a detailed source as well, and Sandford also appears to mention him in his The Final Over: The Cricketers of Summer 1914 - there's story about him uncovering a diamond worth £1 million in Kashmir. No idea where that came from, but there's clearly coverage out there about the chap and he seems notable to me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need to hear from a few more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Three short paragraphs in various sources, which I would say delete; but according to @AA, detailed coverage in multiple books as well as a Times article. This sourcing seems to pass WP:GNG, even if his individual case is not necessarily different from others. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's on my list to expand. I have an interest in WWI cricketers. Have to juggle that with my Hampshire cricket expansion project! AA (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others


Northern Ireland

Maura Paterson

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

Fails GNG. The Daily Record is a tabloid therefore shouldn't be used in BLPs. Dougal18 (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Scotland

Maura Paterson

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

Fails GNG. The Daily Record is a tabloid therefore shouldn't be used in BLPs. Dougal18 (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney McAvoy

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

Fails GNG. The Edinburgh Evening News articles contain little on her and are far too quote heavy for sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow (band)

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

No reliable, secondary sources give significant coverage to the subject. Skyshiftertalk 00:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Edge (Andy Duguid album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM DonaldD23 talk to me 23:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not opposed to a redirect.) toweli (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Can someone please enlighten me why articles need to be deleted in the first place? This is a 4KB article with fewer than 40 edits containing a 89KB work of art. Will WP become better-off without it? Speaking of this "notability" principle: media normally ignores less known artists, thus even the best/better albums in terms of music, style, arrangement, etc. may be ignored completely because their artists are not promoted enough. WP contains a ton of info on Calvin Harris whose music is absolutely bland electronic beats with no soul, finesse, nothing and who is going to be completely forgotten 10 years from now. Yet, "notable", right? There are literally hundreds of thousands of article in need of improvement and you're chasing articles to delete? Whoa. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your requested explanation: Deleting articles about things that don't qualify for them is longstanding Wikipedia policy that the user community has developed for years and years. See WP:NALBUM for this debate and WP:N for general principles. For Calvin Harris, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. For other articles that need improvement, this is a volunteer community waiting for someone like you to improve them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:  WP:NOTDATABASE: “Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information”, it should not be a discography database such as Discogs, Musicbrainz, etc. WP:GNG should always be followed. When the album doesn’t meet the required notability, it shouldn’t have a standalone page. No significant coverage of the album by reliable independent sources could be found. Nihonjinatny (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andy Duguid. I can't find any notability for this album. Galaxybeing (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Others


Wales

Jasper Rees

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

Sources included do not prove WP:GNG. Ktkvtsh (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amel Rachedi

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

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

Others



Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/United_Kingdom&oldid=1060849364"