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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:20, 15 April 2024

WP:AFD/UK

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|United Kingdom|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to the United Kingdom. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

See also:

Scan for United Kingdom related AfDs

United Kingdom

The 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penistone FM

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

In the process of updating this article about a radio station to reflect recent changes to its broadcasting frequencies, I noticed its references were somewhat thin, so went looking and found that there was very little SIGCOV out there to sustain it under WP:GNG. All I can find are a single article about it receiving grant funding in 2021 [1] and a few passing mentions in articles about other things [2] [3]. I'm just not sure there's enough weight here in terms of references to back up notability, particularly given that the radio station has been broadcasting since 2009 so at some point in that time should have done something coverage-worthy, if it was notable in any way. Flip Format (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little coverage available anywhere to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would support redirecting to an appropriate list if one exists. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Switch Scotland

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

This article about a digital radio multiplex has been tagged for notability since 2012 and I'm unable to find much in the way of SIGCOV to assert notability - just articles about stations opening and closing on the multiplex signal, which are primarily about the stations and not the multiplex. There is !precedent for redirecting these articles to the article for their parent company [4]. Most of this article consists of unsourced WP:OR about stations being added, deleted and moved around on various digital radio multiplexes. Flip Format (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Flip Format (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No issue with notability, and the article contains a history, stations broadcast, transmitter information and references. Rillington (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Through the Dragon's Eye. ✗plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Through the Dragon's Eye episodes

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

Looking back in articles history the sources given were links to youtube videos which were removed because of unclear copyright status - which appears to be where these plot summaries are lifted from (example ep1 matching the plot summary in this article exactly). This makes me think that the article is a possible copyvio itself. Either way the plot summaries excessive, and this is not an encylopedic list. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Lists, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to parent article Through the Dragon's Eye in it's existing "Episodes" section, but use the Template:Episode table template to organise this neater and with a condensed episode summary. I agree that it's hard to justify the need for a separate episode article for this TV series, which I recall well from my own childhood, but none the less accept the episodes themselves aren't particularly notable. I am not convinced by the WP:COPYVIO concerns as expressed by the nom, as it seems the episode summaries were written (c.2008) before they were uploaded to youtube (c.2010). If there was evidence the current episodes prose existed/exists elsewhere before being added to the article, that may then give weight to deletion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as outlined by Bungle – neither this list nor the parent article is long enough to justify a split. Some summaries may need to be trimmed after merging to comply with MOS:TVPLOT. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Intuition

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

Article is promotional and only relies on non-independent sources. Other sources on the net such as this and this are also self-published. Request delete per WP:ORGCRITE. AbsoluteWissen (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. AbsoluteWissen (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has been tagged for multiple issues for years without improvement. Little more than an advertisement. Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT. Created by an editor with virtually no other edits. AusLondonder (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arboricultural Association

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

Does not seem to be notable. A search does not reveal any non-trivial coverage of the subject. The only source in the article is primary (the organization's website). XabqEfdg (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. XabqEfdg (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Biology. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Its journal Arboricultural Journal: International Journal of Urban Forestry (formerly Arboricultural Association Journal) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q96326792 is indexed in Scopus. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep when you are the authoritative body in a niche sector there’s a bit of a notability conundrum - all the learned and professional papers are published by you, all the spokespeople are on your board, and pretty much everything connected with the topic is associated with you in some way. Nevertheless I find 1, multiple references in Horticulture Week, and they are the publishers of the scholarly journal of their discipline. Mccapra (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bed Kingdom

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

Pretty random company; article authored by a suspected paid editor. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Reference 6 may be just enough to establish notability, but the other sources are either churnalism or trivial business fluff in the "check out these 50 hot retailers of this week!" style of non-news. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update — the article creator has been blocked indefinitely for undisclosed paid editing. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking substantial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Mentions here and there don't cut it. Also we should have zero tolerance for undisclosed paid editing. AusLondonder (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of abbreviations used on British Empire World War I medals

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

This contains potential copyright violations, it is not adequately sourced, it provides more ambiguity than guidance, lack of provenance Keith H99 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Keith H99 (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had some challenges with the nomination, so I may have inadvertently nominated it more than once. That I can tell, it's an article that not been nominated prior to today, and has been generally ignored. The Article is a long list that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, for each and every item. This duplicates content from other sites, or hosts POV on interpretation, and is best consigned to the trash can, as I perceive it. Keith H99 (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The incorrect information in the article prompted me to take a look at the Silver War Badge article. This needed reworking, which has been done. That article could be corrected, I fail to see that as plausible for this article, hence nomination for deletion. Keith H99 (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a single usable reference in this article, to the National Archives [5], and that content sensibly is not quoted or summarized (because it can't be). This reference could be included with a single sentence at Awards and decorations of the British Armed Forces. All the rest of the article is unsourced, and probably would violate WP:NOTCATALOG if it were sourced by just replicating a complete list of unannotated items found in the original. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear violation of WP:NOT. Whether this is a directory or extract from the table of a textbook, it is not an encyclopaedic article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Hits Radio South Yorkshire. ✗plicit 00:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big John @ Breakfast

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

There's nothing to suggest that this radio morning show is notable over and above the station on which it appears. Anything that can be sourced can be merged to the article on Hallam FM, but I can't find anything out there that is independent SIGCOV for this show itself. Flip Format (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A show which has on air for 24 years, and has won many industry awards, is clearly notable. Rillington (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you need to go back and look at WP:GNG and read how Wikipedia defines "notability". Several of your comments are along these lines - it's a broadcasting radio station, so it's notable; it's been on the air for years, so it's notable. These assertions don't tie in with the actual guideline, which is that the subject has to have had "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" that are "independent of the subject". Before nominating, I look for this in various sources, and if I've nominated something, it's because I've been unable to find it during my own research. In other cases, I find coverage and add it to flesh out an article that's otherwise unsourced. If others (including you) can find WP:SIGCOV for the subject of an article I've nominated, then that's great, but just asserting "it's notable" carries little weight. I haven't found anything for Big John @ Breakfast other than brief mentions in local papers and the radio trade press, nothing that would assert notability. It appears to be a WP:MILL radio morning show like many others around the world that don't have their own articles. Flip Format (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think we will always clash over Afd as I continue to hold the view that you seem to want articles deleted far too readily, although I note that you seem to have somewhat reigned in this instinct, which is good. As you know, I am against AfD as a matter of course, not least as people have made an effort to produce, and update these articles, and to want them deleted is a bit like throwing all their efforts back at them by using a very narrow, even draconian, interpretation of rules to justify having their efforts deleted. My view is to be positive about articles and it is very rare that I would ever advocate for anyone's efforts to be deleted, and this article does have sufficient independent references to further justify its inclusion. Rillington (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As with most AFDs these days, we need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hits Radio South Yorkshire where the show is mentioned. Sources don't provide the significant coverage required to pass the GNG. Regarding awards, there needs to be reporting independent of the award giver and radio station. As the programme is ongoing there's still a chance of it becoming notable, so a redirect to the radio station is preferable to outright deletion. Rupples (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC) To elaborate, the listing of award recipients is OK but doesn't tell us why the programme received the award. If reviews of and discussions about the show/awards are sourced, it would help demonstrate notability. Rupples (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC). The limited content looks reliably sourced so can be merged rather than just redirected. Changing my view to merge and redirect on reflection. Rupples (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Hits Radio South Yorkshire, not independantly notable. Desertarun (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If desired, anyone may create a redirect as an ordinary editing decision. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Laurence Fox GB News scandal

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. Relatively minor controversy that did not have much of a lasting impact. Furthermore, it is already covered in the GB News article. Partofthemachine (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GB News#Other investigations per nom Nate • (chatter) 16:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Events, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unnecessary fork from GB News and Laurence Fox. A redirect is unnecessary as this is an unlikely search term. AusLondonder (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with above comments. There is nothing here that can't be covered in the GB News and Laurence Fox articles. ResonantDis_tortion 22:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 14:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Jacobs

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

Fails GNG. Some hits online due to prolific local history writing, and being involved in various local events and organisations. None of it notable though, and no significant coverage for this individual. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United Kingdom. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe go back and work on the article because for now not enough here. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Connections

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

Promotional, unreferenced article on organisation that doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. For the record this is not the same company as Global Connection which was previously deleted and salted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert for organisation that appears to fail WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced, promotional with no GNG met. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. We cannot redirect to an article that does not exist, but if one on the magazine is created, please ping me and I can restore the history under a redirect. Star Mississippi 02:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maan Abu Taleb

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

~~Took a look at this article at the suggestion of another editor who suggested a delete nom. After reviewing it, I'm gonna agree with him.~~ The only sources I can find of this guy are, a Vice interview (not enough) and coverage of his magazine (sexual misconduct allegations, mostly) The magazine he founded, Ma3azef, may have a case for notability despite being a redlink, but this is not WP:INHERITED (and additionally, fails WP:AUTHOR 3.). Then there is the matter of his book, the english translation of the book seems to have gotten no coverage whatsoever and frankly, the fact that it was only longlisted for a rather niche prize (the Banipal, which is awarded to english translations of Arabic books), seems to only strengthen the case here. Given that this article has had this sourcing issue for at least four years, it seems to suggest that nobody else can find sources either. Hence, this likely fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR/WP:NEDITOR. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Jordan, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Numerous and diverse secondary sources emerge on a Google search. The English translation of his first novel was published by an academic press, and it appears he's active in the Arabic diaspora. I assess that the subject is notable and the page is marked as stub quality for lack of volunteer editors contributing to expand it. I've done some work and will add more soon. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Allan Nonymous, when you took a look at the article - did you look at the subject's Wikidata item, which was created back in 2019. In particular, on 13 December 2020 a contributor added the Google Knowledge Graph ID which has a wide amount of interesting information available at a click and waiting for further editing of the page by future volunteer editors (such as myself). Basing your judgment on the content of a stub page is a weak argument, and I write this as a Good Faith editor with a lot of work in Wikidata under my belt. In evaluating a page to nominate as AfD's, this would be my advice. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deborahjay that article is made of paper, the numerous sources are only 2, I can't believe it when my Noam Bettan article had 22 sources. Furthermore, the first is an autobiography of a blog, if the article does not make it relevant, it lacks too much content for it to remain here, it seems like a mirror article, that article could very well be on another free website where it does not matter. ask for too much information like in FANDOM. Acartonadooopo (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Sock comment struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Acartonadooopo, you fail to show understanding of Wikipedia guidelines relevant to new page creators: notability, biographies of living people, reliable sources, stub article. Your 22 sources for the Noam Bettan page were from Israeli popular music platforms and websites, not mainstream media. I found them inadequate and agreed with the Deletion recommendation. This page you've proposed for deletion is a stub for notable person, an author with listings in the US Library of Congress and the National Library of Israel (and Canada, Japan and others, besides his ID included in the Virtual International Authority File. This is evinced by his Wikidata item. Considering how little experience you have in the EN WP, it's not too soon for you to learn the consensus on best practices of this collaborative effort before you criticize from your own point of view. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata shoudn't be used for notability here, it's user created, so just any old person can go create a profile there. It's really only useful to us for cross-platform linking of topics, it has its own set of standards that don't apply here either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think we have notability. I can't find book reviews and this is the only RS [6], but it's more of an interview. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe a redirect to the red-linked magazine he founded, the Ma3azef, might work. There's some coverage around that. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, that's why I mentioned it as an option given that Ma3azef is probably notable. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it has come to my attention that the user here who suggested the nom was a sock. I have struck the portion of the comment referring to him, but I think the nom is still sound here (despite the rather unsavory way this was brought to my attention).

Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 12:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saxoncourt

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

No signs of news coverage, only coverage is in books about cram schools in clearly passing coverage. Even if we take the (now dead) Japanpost links at face value they are, at best, routine coverage. Fails WP:GNG pretty clearly. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Japan, and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much self promotion here http://www.saxoncourt.net/en/groupnetwork.php Acartonadooopo (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I added to Companies delsort because although they operate schools, this is about Saxoncourt Holdings, Ltd. The page is a bit confused about whether it is a company or companies (I presume it is multiple companies held in a shell company), but that does appear to be the primary topic. Therefore WP:NCORP pertains as relevant guidelines and the sources on the page do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Neither could I find anything that meets WP:SIRS. Information is either passing, or lacks independence or is a primary source. Non notable company (or companies!). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage. This is not a high school or college, but rather a company that runs tutoring services and cram schools. Bearian (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Succession to the British throne#Current line of succession. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Vogel

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

No evidence of any notability. A reporter did some OR and identified what he thought was the last in the line of succession. In reality the lne of succession is almost infinite, if one whole line died out the rules allow succession to be tracked back to earlier monarchs and through wider family connections. This is just trivial nonsense. Was PRODed and dePRODded before, hence this AfD. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established by all the media coverage already cited in the article, including an article in The Wall Street Journal. Contrary to the nominator's claim, the line of succession is distinctly finite. It consists only of descendants of Sophia of Hanover. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Interesting human interest story, but without much more, I don't see notability. Medical therapist interviewed a decade ago with nothing since, I don't see sustained coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 4972nd in line, if that helps. Could be a one line mention in an article about the monarchy, but that's all. Oaktree b (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ into Succession to the British throne, a sentence on the lines of "In 2011 it was reported that some genealogists had stated that therapist Karin Vogel, from Rostoock, Germany, was then the 4,972nd and last in the line of succession." with the various sources. (The WSJ seems to be the core report, but is pay-walled so I can't see it). Seems an encyclopedia-worthy snippet of reporting, but not enough to give her an article of her own. PamD 21:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more carefully at Succession to the British throne I note that the list on which she appears is mentioned and referenced, as is the update 10 years later where she was again in last place, this time at 5,753. I have added her name and a couple of her refs to that article. I now think we can just Redirect to Succession to the British throne#Current line of succession. PamD 22:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the reporters were not "doing OR" as asserted by the nominator: they were reporting on a report by a notable genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner who had compiled what he asserted to be a complete list (and yes, it is a finite set of people because of the requirement that they be descendants of Sophia, although this list is over-inclusive as it doesn't check for "in communion with the Church of England"!). PamD 22:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. WP:ONEEVENT. DrKay (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. Stub with limited opportunity for growth. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: while not the definition of WP:ONEEVENT, this person isn't notable. They hold a spot in a line, that, because of it's position, has received news coverage. Redirect is suitable as she is mentioned at the target: Succession to the British throne#Current line of succession, per PamD. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hereford

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about an actor, and added a reference to his employer's website; but cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources, and do not think he meets WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an article for deletion - definitely meets the criteria for actor. Multiple credits in major film and tv shows. 2600:1700:4640:E70:ECCA:5D5:421E:ECB4 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "employer". Henry is an established actor having been on several films and TV shows as referenced in IMDB and trade magazines. There is no reason this page would be deleted. Thefilmsorcerer (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG or NACTOR. A 21st-century actor and yet yields no results in Google News tells a lot. General searches also did not produce anything of use. Other than 1-2, the used refs aren't about him rather the films/shows he's starred in. X (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR. His roles are all of the single-name supporting cast, so insignificant they don't even have a full name, or are throwaway characters. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Greaves-Neal

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this actor, and cannot find reliable sources to add. The article has been tagged as an unreferenced BLP since December 2023. I do not think he meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mentions found, no SIGCOV. As a side note, article has apparent history of editing by the subject.Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG as has no independent, verifiable references.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find independent significant sources. Won't pass WP:GNG. Besides, passing mentions can't be considered as references. Hkkingg (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004

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

As far as I can tell, this law has virtually no coverage anywhere. Fails WP:GNG completely. Only references are primary sources. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. The Act, also called CAICE, has significant coverage in many books and periodical articles in Google Books, Google Scholar, Internet Archive and HeinOnline. There is significant commentary on the Act in Halsbury's Statutes and Current Law Statutes [7]. That commentary, some of which is already cited in the article, is certainly an independent secondary source. This Act is, amongst other things, the law relating to community interest companies (CICs), which law is Part 2 of this Act, and the same thing as this Act. Accordingly, there are entire books about this Act: [8] ("Law . . . of Community Interest Companies"), and many entire periodical articles about this Act. James500 (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the citations cover this specific act, they only seem to cover the more general field Community Interest Companies and seem to only mention this act in passing as a source for some of the information about the field. WP:GNG requires coverage, not citation. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Halsbury and Current Law are entirely about this Act, and they are a commentary on the Act. Likewise Bishop's book contains extensive commentary on the Act. An Act is not a source of information. An Act is the law. To use your terminology, the Act is "the field". Those sources, and the many other books are not just "citations". You might as well claim that a book review was "just a citation" of the book being reviewed. James500 (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more importantly, both Halsbury and Current Law (and other sources) also include extensive commentary on Parts 1 and 3 of the Act, which have nothing to do with CICs. So this article is not redundant to the article on CICs. Even Part 2 of the Act is not completely redundant to the topic of CICs generally (at least as opposed to the law of CICs), since that topic includes all non-legal aspects of CICs (such as the companies themselves, statistical information about them, and the economic and social implications of them). Part 2 is independently notable of CICs generally when you consider the number of non-legal sources that discuss CICs. James500 (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Voorts: The policy WP:RELIST says ". . . relisting should not be a substitute for a no consensus closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive discussion, and disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, but consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable" and "While having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for potential editors. Therefore, repeatedly relisting discussions merely in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended. In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice. When relisting for a third (or further) time, or when relisting a discussion with a substantial number of commenters, the relisting editor should write a short explanation either within the relist template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the current state of the discussion sufficient to determine a closure result." Therefore please provide the required "short explanation", or just close the AfD yourself, or allow it to be closed by someone else. James500 (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. There's a lot of discussion, but the "delete" opinions carry the day. In terms of numbers, they're in a relatively substantial majority, 5 to 2 (plus one neutral and draftify each). In terms of arguments, if as here notability is the key issue, a "keep" minority can only prevent deletion by making a compelling policy-based argument for inclusion - i.e., references to the kind of in-depth, independent, reliable coverage that GNG requires. Here, this is not the case.

As regards draftification, an ATD also proposed, there is neither consensus for it nor do I think it would be useful - we draftify stuff if there are reasonable prospects of improvement, but here it seems that three weeks of newspaper archive searches have uncovered most if not all that has been written about the subject. Regardless, if new sources are discoverd, draftification is still possible via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 19:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Corkran

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

No evidence of any notability. Being a member of the nobility does not equate to notability. Sources show that he lived , that he had a family and worked as a coutier to a minor royal and that he died, but nothing beyond that. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and United Kingdom. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably a thoroughly nice gentleman, but absolutely nothing to say about him, no sign of notability. Merely having a genealogy and existing as a courtier on the fringes of the UK's rather enormous royal family doesn't confer notability. Elemimele (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A knighthood very clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Nobody with a confirmed knighthood has ever been deleted. He also has an obituary, albeit a short one, in a major national newspaper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all knighthoods are equal. KCVO wasn't conferred as a significant honour for doing anything in particular, it was a knighthood given in recognition of service to the monarch, basically an automatic consequence of his job, a high-society version of receiving a carriage clock when you retired as a station-master. Anyone appointed equerry to Beatrice would have received this title, irrespective of what they did. We should therefore focus on whether the job is wikipedia-notable. Basically if we have nothing to say about an equerry except that they existed, it's hard to justify an article. In Corkran's case, even his obituary, which is contemporary and presumably written by someone with the information at their fingertips, struggles to say anything about him beyond that he went to school. In terms of deleting knights, we've converted consorts of monarchs to redirects based on the fact their notability, like Corkran's, is only inherited.

It's also a very bad sign that the article is almost entirely genealogy, spending longer talking about his parents and offspring than it does about him himself. Elemimele (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all knighthoods are equal. Indeed. KCVO is two levels above Knight Bachelor, the lowest level of knighthood! Essentially claiming it's not a real knighthood is purely your POV. Claiming his notability is inherited is patently ridiculous. He isn't notable for being married to someone notable; he received his knighthood for his achievements and service just like any other knight. Anyone appointed equerry to Beatrice would have received this title, irrespective of what they did. No they wouldn't. He was her comptroller and treasurer, the head of her household, not just her equerry. Like it or not, these people held highly influential and notable positions in the United Kingdom, hence their knighthoods. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relationship between levels of honours, and Wikipedia notability, is rather complicated. For example, a British Empire Medal is, in honours terms, one of the lowest, but it is never awarded as a retirement present, always for doing something fairly outstanding. It is often awarded to quite ordinary people who have made themselves extraordinary by their activities, which means it's often a sign of Wikipedia notability. An OBE or MBE, on the other hand, is higher, but is often given as a retirement present to senior civil figures, and therefore (sometimes) reflects merely that they had a certain job. As a sign of Wikipedia notability, it needs to be interpreted with context.

Again, the whole system is coloured with an inclination to give an award at a level depending on the social status of the recipient (which isn't something we need to reflect in Wikipedia; we're interested in what the person did). So, for example, if a university professor or academic stands out from the crowd, he will get a MBE or OBE (for example Alison Mary Smith), while a research assistant in the same field (for example Anne Edwards (botanist)), if they stand out from the crowd (which is much less likely, harder to do, and more notable when it's achieved!), they will get a British Empire medal.

In Corkran's case, of course he got a high grade of knighthood, because he was working with a high grade of nobility.

My case against an article on Corkran is simply that we have no source whatsoever to say that he did anything whatsoever (except be an equerry who went to school). What's the point in an article? Elemimele (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that grades of honours often depended, and to an extent still depend, on grade of job (e.g. traditionally BEM for an NCO, MBE for a junior or warrant officer, OBE for a field officer, CBE for a colonel or brigadier, KBE for a general officer). However, it is also true that those who got higher honours were also far more prominent by the very nature of the grade of their job, so I don't think this is an especially valid argument. I think it is very hard to argue that anyone with an honour at the level of companion/commander or knight/dame is not notable. It is odd for Wikipedia to say that people are not notable when the British government considers they are; even though we are not bound by government decrees, it is simple common sense that anyone awarded this level of honour is notable in the real world and should therefore be considered notable by Wikipedia, which, for crying out loud, considers many teenage Youtubers to be notable just because they have a significant internet presence! For obvious reasons, Sir Victor did not have, but that does not mean he was not a notable person in his day and his field, which was royal administration. It is not our place to decide that one field of endeavour is less notable than another.

Incidentally, he didn't get his KCVO as a "retirement present"; he was knighted six years before he retired and was awarded the CVO, which would also make him notable under ANYBIO, 22 years before that for being private secretary and comptroller of the household to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. And the BEM has very often been awarded as a "retirement present" after a long career of service just like any other honour; that doesn't, however, make it any less significant, as it does indeed recognise a long and distinguished career in the person's chosen field. We do not generally consider that a BEM (or MBE, OBE, RVM, MVO or LVO) meets ANYBIO simply because for the most part, with certain exceptions such as sportspeople, actors, TV presenters, etc, recipients are in careers or at grades where they do not tend to register on notability scales. That is not the case with CBEs or higher, as these are usually awarded to senior people who make a significant mark on society, even though they may not figure greatly on the internet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On your User Page, you say "I do not believe that Wikipedia should feature articles about completely non-notable people". That is surely the case here: what did this person, today completely forgotten by everyone apart from relatives, do to make him notable? I would go for Delete. Athel cb (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning ordinary people with no claim to notability. A KCVO, an entry in Who's Who and an obit in The Times are all claims to notability. No knight or recipient of a CVO is non-notable by definition. Why do you think people receive honours? For doing nothing notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: definitely notable, has one source which makes it KEEP. I’m participating here because non living person’s article is being created here with an image royal family, with source I can’t find any reason why it should be deleted. AnkkAnkur (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Plus they're a sock. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Delete WP:ANYBIO does not override GNG: "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The sourcing demonstrates trivial mentions, not significant coverage. Take this "Morning's Gossip" from the Daily Mirror for example. The entirety of the relevant part of this source is one sentence "Mr Victor Cochrane has arrived at Osborne Cottage in attendance on the Princess" this is plainly not the sourcing required to demonstrate notability. Simply being a servant to a British royal does not mean you inherit notability. AusLondonder (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, WP:INHERITED does not apply (and note it's only an essay in any case). He is not notable for anything inherited from anyone else but for the achievements that gave him a CVO and then a KCVO, which are only awarded to people who are already notable. I do wish people would stop citing the wrong thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If that's the case that these awards are only awarded to "already notable" people rather than favourite servants then we need to see the GNG-level coverage to prove that. I will happily change my mind if I see something better than one line mentions in gossip columns. AusLondonder (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I entirely agree that there unfortunately isn't much coverage (maybe if the internet had been around when he was alive there would have been a lot more!), but I also can't believe that anyone could seriously claim that someone with a CVO and KCVO (awarded in his case for holding two entirely different posts, incidentally; the CVO was awarded to him before he was a courtier) was not notable. It should be self-evident that these high honours are not randomly distributed to nobodies for doing nothing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or draftify - Look, we're doing this wrong, and on the face of it the nom. has a point. The page has already improved since the nomination, but it is not a clear WP:HEY because the sources being used are primary sources. If your project is the history of Corkran, this would be a great start. But we are not writing histories, we are writing an encyclopaedia, and you need to find the secondary sources that already exist and build the page from there. Writing a page from primary sources is original research. You are doing history, not an encyclopaedia. Where are these secondary sources? I don't know. I don't see them, and I did not find them in initial searches. And for that reason this should be a delete. Publish the history and you can definitely have a page, but until someone does that, this is pretty iffy. But here's why I am making a weak case to keep this article: because this is a subject that might well elicit history articles - perhaps has already done so. There is certainly plenty in primary sources, and the shortcuts to assess notability (has a knighthood) are far from perfect, but not irrelevant. And if this were the state of the page after months of work, I would be searching hard for a redirect target at this point, on the basis that searches have failed. But, in fact, this page is week old and was nominated less than a day after it was started. No discussion on the talk page. WP:DEMOLISH applies. If I had my way, I would want this closed as "no consensus" to give the page creator a couple of months to knock this into shape before it can be renominated. Perhaps I should bold "draftify" instead (ETA, I bolded both), but ultimately it is a historical subject, a figure that we certainly might expect to see treated by historians (if not thoroughly nor directly) and a darn sight more likely to be notable than a lot of pages that we seem to want to keep. Keep iit or draftify it, but don't delete it. At least, not until we can see the final shape of it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this some more and in the light of Rupples' additional comments, I don't think I can justify keep. But my comments about DEMOLISH remain, and think we should draftify this. That is not merely backdoor deletion. It gives the creator a chance to develop this with secondary sources if any exist, and if they don't, it gives them an easy route to transfer some content to Princess Beatrice as appropriate. It is a new page, and draft space is meant for such incubation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some thoughtful arguments put forward for both keep and delete. My search found lots of mentions in newspapers stating he accompanied notable people at events plus notices of his marriage. There's also newspaper obituaries, basically stating positions held. No entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography though, which to my mind weighs against notabilty despite the honours received. I also note that Corkran despite serving Princess Beatrice for 25 years isn't mentioned in that featured article, slightly strange, but not a determining factor. Overall neutral, although the article content, which is a list of roles and wikilinked name-drops does leave some doubt as to whether notability has or can be established. Rupples (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that only a small minority of people have entries in the DNB. The vast majority of people we have articles on do not. The vast majority of people with knighthoods do not. He does, of course, have an entry in Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You must know that WP:WHOSWHO is a deprecated source and does not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It's been deprecated as a source for information because its entries are self-authored (although it is fair to say that most of its entries are accurate, so this is probably a little unfair). However, as you must know, that is separate from establishing notability, since those included are selected by its staff on the basis of their notability and neither apply nor pay to be included. Almost all people with honours at this level are included. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. I would have thought Corkran would at least be mentioned in this book, given the length of his service to Princess Beatrice: The Shy Princess: The Life of Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice, the Youngest Daughter and Constant Companion of Queen Victoria by David Duff [9]. A search of the copy on Internet Archive, has no mention of him in this biography, which surely adds to doubts over Corkran's notability. Rupples (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep this demonstrates again that he simply wasn't a notable individual, even in his time. Knighthoods are routinely awarded to royal aides and that does not mean they get a notability free pass. AusLondonder (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have zero PAG-based justification for this topic being a standalone article other than the debunked assertion that simply receiving some honor corresponds to coverage sufficient to meet N. Zero IRS SIGCOV sources have been identified, and obviously being "selected" for inclusion in an unreliable source counts for absolutely nothing. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You do know it hasn't been "debunked"? Some would like it to be, but it hasn't been. obviously being "selected" for inclusion in an unreliable source counts for absolutely nothing. Yup, obviously someone else who hasn't actually bothered to take in what they're citing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You admitted recently that you feel that the part of ANYBIO that states "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" is "utterly extraneous". That's unfortunately not how policy or the English language works. AusLondonder (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Do you really feel the need to post a comment after everything I write? How is what you've just said at all relevant to what I or JoelleJay wrote? And please don't cherrypick and take out of context what I write either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Your reply to Joelle Jay was unnecessary. AusLondonder (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No, I was pointing out flaws in her entire comment. That's clearly a legitimate response. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has the British Newspaper Archive been checked? I can check tomorrow if this is not already closed by then. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral between keep and delete. I don't see an obvious AtD. I'm taking into account both the guidance on honours in WP:ANYBIO and the lack of indepth coverage, which means the subject probably doesn't satisfy the GNG. I also note that satisfying WP:NBIO#Additional criteria does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Rupples (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the pass of WP:ANYBIO (which needs to hold some weight), the decent expansion of the article proves that Corkran passes WP:NBASIC, which states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability – the many mentions of him and coverage across years of his life, as well as the nation-wide coverage of his death (some of which has some depth and could be considered sigcov imo, e.g. [10]), proves that this satisfies it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Nothing to indicate this meets WP:ANYBIO, and the arguements towards such boil down to ILIKEIT, not guidelines and sources. // Timothy :: talk 03:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this not pass WP:NBASIC, which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability? There seems to be a pretty fair case for this passing ANYBIO as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I said above, this is a new page. Rupples, you say there is no obvious AtD, but draftify is available. Are people opposed to that AtD? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The case you put forward for draftify is a good one. If the article creator, who has been properly notified of this discussion, indicated acceptance, it would tip my recommendation in that direction. Rupples (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of draftifying? Its already an excellent article at nearly 600 words and contains a number of different sources that IMO satisfy WP:NBASIC (If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability); not to mention some sources that could be argued as SIGCOV and a pass of ANYBIO (which needs to hold some weight). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NBASIC states:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
It is noted in the discussion above that sources are primary and that coverage of the subject is not significant. You point to one source (paywalled) which tells us of his death, confirms he was Gentleman-in-Waiting to princess Beatrice while in Spain and appointed an Equerry and then treasurer of the Household. We learn he was educated at Eton, the names of his parents and died 3 days after a serious operation. Is that SIGCOV? Well it's something. Reliable yes, secondary and independent? Well the notice was probably placed there and it is a report of death. It is not great, but even if we accepted it, it is still not multiple. I am not seeing an NBASIC pass here. But a source analysis is welcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NBASIC does mention that quote, and then below it states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, which is what we have here (and I'll note that the obit I referenced is 164 words; that's SIGCOV IMO for a subject like this). The Burke's Peerage source may be primary (?), but the many newspaper refs absolutely can count towards NBASIC, given that they allow us to develop a reasonable portrait of his life, and considering that they do and that we have someone who passes WP:ANYBIO with an honor no subject has ever been deleted while possessing ... this should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"but the many newspaper refs absolutely can count towards NBASIC". But NBASIC says
Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't previously heard the interpretation that newspapers are primary sources and can't be used to establish notability; IMO that'd be a pretty drastic change from what seems to be accepted practice. Its also worth noting that the one ref notes that "he proved his business and social capacity in a way that ensured him a great popularity" – something like that would highly likely result in further coverage as well, from my understanding – not every source from 1909 is currently accessible to us. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and the policy: WP:PRIMARY - see note d. But, in fact, newspapers as a class are not primary sources. The question is more nuanced, and will depend on the question being asked of the source. Which sources do you think are secondary? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's wrong with the nation-wide coverage of his death? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just reporting his death? See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. A documentary of his life? that would be secondary. Something in between? Let's analyse it more closely. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. People are on the fence about this, but the discussion trends towards "keep" as more sources were discovered and the article improved throughout the AfD. Sandstein 07:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters (2004 film)

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

Completely unsourced article about a short film. The attempted notability claim here is that it won an award at a minor film festival, but WP:NFILM does not just indiscriminately accept every single film festival award on earth as a notability-locking award -- that only goes to major internationally prominent film festivals such as Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto or Sundance whose awards get broadly reported by the media as news, because even the award itself has to meet the notability criteria for awards before it can make its winners notable for winning it. But the award claim here is unsourced, and the article isn't citing any other sources for anything else either. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything. It's entirely possible that there are sources that aren't online, but I can't really find anything to firmly argue that either. That leaves us with the sole claim of this winning an award at BUFF. I would argue that the award would give the film some notability, just not enough to keep on that basis alone. BUFF is a notable film festival, but not notable or major enough to be on the level that is expected of the award criteria for NFILM. It's not a slam against BUFF - most film festivals aren't at that level. If someone can produce a couple of good sources (as well as one for the award) then I'm open to changing my opinion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are reviews from The Guardian and Film Threat [11] [12]. Although both of the other sources are direct interviews, the Film Threat source goes into detail about the film's reception and what the director feels he should change if he had the chance to retake the film. What do you think about the new sourcing @Bearcat: @ReaderofthePack:? DareshMohan (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely on the right track, but I'd still need to see proper reliable sourcing (i.e. not the self-published website of the film's own distributor) for the award claims before I was prepared to withdraw this from discussion entirely — an award has to be one that gets covered by the media (i.e. passes GNG in its own right) in order to gain the privilege of making its winners notable for winning it, so award wins have to be sourced to media coverage to prove that the award is notable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Audience award at a film festival doesn't seem to meet film notability. The rest seems to be local coverage, of a hometown hero-type coverage. I don't see anything written about this short film otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Couldn't source the audience award. Sourced the other award based on [13]. @Oaktree b: @Bearcat: If two reviews (the Guardian one is a capsule review) doesn't add notability, then this article can be deleted. DareshMohan (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reliable source either. We need to see real media, not blogs. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my delete vote. I suppose if pressed I'd consider this a week keep based on the two reviews, but I'm not really satisfied enough to say that officially. Here's my argument as to why I removed the delete:

So far, there's no definitive judgment based on review length. The reason why is that review length doesn't automatically mean that something is of good or bad quality. Every time someone tries, the argument centers back on one central point: what makes a review a review is that the journalist forms an opinion or judgment on the film, which can be done in just a few sentences. It doesn't help that there are lengthier reviews out there that tend to discuss general things (or navel gaze) for a few paragraphs, then use the final one to give the actual opinion/judgment. There's also the outlet to consider, because a capsule review from a nationally known paper like The Guardian is going to be more impressive than if my local paper, which has at most half the circulation of TG, were to review the same short film. It's not a knock against my local paper, just that the higher circulation means that TG is presumably going to be more discerning because they have a larger audience. (IE, more mainstream publications are more likely to focus on mainstream stuff whereas a smaller paper could review something off the wall because there's potentially less red tape and so on.)

It's pretty rare that short films get reviews at all and when they do, the length is usually short because they're going to be watching it with a batch of other stuff at a film festival or packaged with a full-length movie. It's rare that a short film is the sole focus, because there's a bit of risk in covering short films.

So my next focus then is whether or not the article will be anything other than a paragraph of content. I do see two interviews on there and while sure, they're primary, they can still be used to expand the article and give it at least somewhat more encyclopedic value. We could probably improve the production section to be more than a big quote and we could also add a release section. I see that it was given a re-release at a 2020 film festival, the Lyon Festival Hallucinations Collectives, so that's definitely something. I suppose that last bit could qualify as a bit of notability but one would need to find sourcing and honestly, I never feel comfortable arguing for a keep that way unless it's at a very notable festival or the institution holding the festival or retrospective are very notable. This is close, but it still feels pretty weak. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the director notable? A good alternative might be to create an article for the director and summarize this there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he has an article: Robert Morgan (filmmaker). Maybe just summarize the release and production there? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've greatly improved the article. It looks fairly proper now. I wouldn't mind this being kept. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All in all, coverage and nomination seem to show it might be notable. A redirect to the director seems warranted anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Westminster International University in Tashkent. Consensus is the rewrite fixed the content issues, but not the notability ones. Star Mississippi 01:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic Academy of London

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

Contested PROD for not being uncontroversial (though not by me). Appears to be original research, possible redirect to Joseph Mifsud? IgelRM (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. IgelRM (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Schools. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources in the article provide SIGCOV. They are primary or press releases with no depth of coverage (Azerbaijan, check if recognized, GCU, opening of new), unreliable forums (houzz, diplomacy.edu), or not even mentioned (US News, Guardian). Nothing better found in my searching. We don't have to dig into the controversy or decide on its legitimacy to determine that it's not notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I agree none of the current sources provide RS SIGCOV. I found this article in the Stirling Uni student newspaper [14] and this in the BBC [15]. The first may not be reliable and the latter might not be enough SIGCOV. There is this Guardian article which arguably is RS SIGCOV [16]. In any case all the coverage seems to be in connection with Joseph Mifsud. The Guardian article also makes clear the LAD no longer exists as does the Brig piece. In that context, it seems most sensible to me to keep it as a redirect to Joseph Mifsud. Perhaps to a section on the LAD in that article? I'd be happy to create it. Jtrrs0 (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems ill advised since there is no mention of Joseph Mifsud in Diplomatic Academy of London and no mention of Diplomatic Academy of London in Joseph Mifsud. ~Kvng (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as WP:OR and per WP:TNT. The current article reads like an attack piece, and is full of errors which is why it should be deleted and not kept. The claims that these programs are not accredited is false. These are university departments inside respected research universities. There are several different university programs being confused, they are not the same program but multiple different university departments, many of them founded by the same academic, Nabil Ayad, who seems to have made a career setting up departments for UK research universities wanting to take in foreign students from outside the UK. The history here seems to have cobbled together these different non-affiliated programs (each university's department is separate to its own school) through a bunch of original research and spurious claims that are not cited to a reliable secondary sources. The London Academy of Diplomacy was a diplomatic studies department at the University of East Anglia for foreign students studying at the university and its diplomas are awarded through that institution. It closed in 2016.

As for the Diplomatic Academy of London. It is a respectable institution/department that was for a long time housed at the University of Westminster (and still is sort of). It's listed as graduate diplomatic studies program at the University of Westminster in Bulletin - Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities. 1992. p. 109., "Overseas". Pacific Research: A Periodical of the Peace Research Centre. 5–6. Australian National University: 41. 1992. It was absorbed into the Westminster International University in Tashkent which is part of the University of Westminster. (see Can the Prizes Still Glitter?: The Future of British Universitites in a Changing World. University of Buckingham Press. 2007. p. 194. ISBN 9780955464201. which lists the school as part of the Westminster International University in Tashkent in 2007.) I can't find a source, but I would imagine that it was absorbed into that school in 2002 when Westminster restructured it diplomatic/international studies programs when the Westminster International University in Tashkent was founded. As far as I can tell the school is still a department inside the WIUT and offers its courses to foreign students in London and is accredited as part of the WIUT through which its students receive both graduate and post-graduate degrees from the WIUT.

I found quite a lot of citations to publications by this organization, and coverage of some of their symposiums in reliable academic journals dating back as far is the mid 1990s. For example their symposium The Information Explosion : A Challenge for Diplomacy had coverage in The World Today,Volume 53, Issues 1-12 - page 158-159. The organization is listed as a reliable academic publisher in Behle, Sabine, ed. (1994). Publishers' International ISBN Directory/International ISBN Agency, Volume 1. K.G. Saur. p. 708. There's WP:SIGCOV in Demut, Andreas (ed.). Neue Ost-West-Wanderungen nach dem Fall des Eisernen Vorhangs?: Vorträge und Aufsätze der Konferenz über Neue Ost-West-Wanderungen als Folge der wirtschaftlichen und politischen Veränderungen in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Lit Verlag. p. 254-255. ISBN 9783825822224. The organization was also a partner with the United Nations for an Ocotber 25, 2002 symposium entitle The UN and the Media in War and Peace (see Ahmar, Moonis (ed.). Different Perceptions on Conflict Resolution Need for an Alternate Approach. Program on Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution, Department of International Relations, University of Karachi. p. 255. There's a lot more out there. All of this to say, we could have an article, but it's definitely not this article which is both factually wrong and a horribly unethical attack page.4meter4 (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep, although I am not typically a big fan of articles on individual university departments. I re-wrote the article to remove the OR. It's a stub. I also knocked off a stub on London Academy of Diplomacy. Pinging IgelRM, David Eppstein, The Herald, the article is vastly different now. 4meter4 (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely rewritten about a different topic now (good work), although I am not certain of this departments notability. Though the AFD process is a bit of mess now, maybe the previous version should still be deleted. IgelRM (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IgelRM It's a small enough article that we could always redirect and merge to Westminster International University in Tashkent per WP:ATD. It would be fine as a subsection of that article.4meter4 (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect/merge or outright delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the rewritten article to Westminster International University in Tashkent as suggested above. Thanks to 4meter4 for the rewrite. Jfire (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still fairly young, but based on this page they have little to show for. The Banner talk 18:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not have sufficient notability to meet the WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Westminster International University in Tashkent: we have more than enough sources to establish verifiability, and do not need independent notability for a section in the target. The Delete !votes haven't presented any valid reason why the page shouldn't be allowed to stay as a redirect to a valid article. Owen× ☎ 20:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. CBE meets weak sourcing. No indication a 3rd relist would change the split here. Star Mississippi 01:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Butterfield

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of WP:notability under SNG or GNG. Basically a promotional -resume. The lead just says that he is a British brand and communications expert.

The references are just a collection of mentions / announcements on him. Nothing anywhere near even one GNG source.

Some concern that the creator has 28 lifetime edits, all on this article. Article was tagged for UPE concern by somebody else and the tag was quickly removed by an IP. The IP that removed it has 2 lifetime edits...one removing the tag and the other putting a link at another article to this article. North8000 (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Advertising, and United Kingdom. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I looked at a couple of sources and they do seem weak: mostly quoting him on other things and mentioning him briefly, but he appears to have been awarded the Order of the British Empire? Mrfoogles (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Being a commander of the Order of the British Empire is a strong hint that he's notable. The article 2007_Birthday_Honours#Commander_of_the_Order_of_the_British_Empire_(CBE) includes a listing for Leslie Paul Butterfield, Managing Partner, The Ingram Partnership. For services to the Advertising Industry. See also https://www.campaignindia.in/article/interbrands-global-chief-strategy-officer-relocates-to-china/418253/amp and https://en.everybodywiki.com/Leslie_Butterfield_CBE (unreliable source but good for context). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to know what it was awarded to him for, though. The current sources could be better. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A CBE has usually been considered to be notable per WP:ANYBIO #1. See here. People are not awarded such a high honour for nothing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "CBE" is prestigious title and award. Meets WP:ANYBIO.Maxcreator (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I don't think an article about a person should be kept purely on the strength of a CBE. Dozens are given out every year. The article needs to make a claim of notability. At present it reads like a CV. Deb (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at it again, I think it's obvious that there's an undeclared COI here and I'm going to tag the article accordingly. 07:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Dozens every year in a country of 67 million is not many! These are highly prestigious honours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I think that wp:notability does unofficially take real world notability into account a bit, for biographies the core of it is about available of GNG sources from which to build an article. As I noted in the nomination "The references are just a collection of mentions / announcements on him. Nothing anywhere near even one GNG source. " Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still do not see a consensus here. Either a being award a CBE is sufficient or it isn't. Is there any specific guideline on honors such as this and notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I added the Authority control template at the bottom of the article. For what it's worth, that did kick up VIAF hits in multiple languages that show his woks are in various international libraries. Seems to me that makes him notable.— Maile (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Neutral. I am not British. and not knowledgeable on the subject matter. — Maile (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ merge with Stereotypes of British people. I have seriously considered the proposal to transwiki the content to Wiktionary since Wiktionary does accommodate definitions of various idioms as well as words. However, Wiktionary has a Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion policy or guideline, that requires "attestation" to verify that the term or phrasing is in widespread or at least durable use and I have been unable to verify that the expression "Plucky Brit" is an idiom that meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

Many of the listed sources don't use the term "Plucky Brit" at all, and even the ones that do, such as the cited BBC article don't seem to use it idiomatically. Rather, it is the adjective "plucky" to describe the noun "Brit". Defining a "Plucky Brit" as a Brit who is plucky doesn't bring any new meanings that require further definitions. The Times article is behind a paywall, and may be using the term idiomatically based on the capitalization in the title, but even so "durable use" on Wiktionary calls for at least three examples of the expression being used.

The other WP:ATD option that was suggested was merging and redirecting to the "Stereotypes of British people". Although this option was crossed out by its proposer, on the belief that the transwiki option had more support, this option is consistent with policies and guidelines. A number of the cited in the articles do indeed explicity refer to the "plucky" sportsman as "stereotypically" British, so including this content there is in line with WP:V and WP:NOR. I am closing this discussion accordingly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plucky Brit

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

Seems like WP:NOTDICT. Found this article while trying to de-orphan, only other mention of this phrase relates to a military serviceman so definition is not even accurate. Orange sticker (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Sports, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on deletion, which is unfortunate because someone took the time to source this well and I think it's a good article but it doesn't really fit Wikipedia's mission.

UptonSincere (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry, this made me realise I hadn't notified the creator of this article - rectified now. Orange sticker (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move and inter-wiki redirect to wikt:plucky Brit, I think most of this article could be salvaged on Wiktionary. The quotes and references could be used as attestations. That way the work wouldn't go to waste. --Habst (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the quotes in the article doesn't even say "plucky Brits", they say "[British] plucky losers" which I think Wikitionary would consider to be a different phrase. ---- D'n'B-t -- 15:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DandelionAndBurdock, thanks, what do you think about adding that specific quote to wikt:plucky then, and adding the rest of the references (which do specifically say "plucky brit") to wikt:plucky Brit? --Habst (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Habst, I'd support adding that particular quote and others to wikt:plucky: the sources suggest to me that the word plucky is an adjective that can be applied to "looser", "sports team"[17] and "Italian"[18] just as easily as Brit. Maybe an entry could also be created for Plucky Brit in particular but not being familiar with Wikit's inclusion policies I shaln't comment on that. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD: Merge into Stereotypes of British people, which seems like a good category for this sort of topic. --Habst (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habst, you present two different outcomes you'd like to see happen. Could you cross out the one that is your "less preferred" choice? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, thank you. Given that there is some consensus for my first proposed outcome, I will cross out this one. But I wouldn't really say I have a preference for either, I think they are both good outcomes. --Habst (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 COPIM. which is the page title for the article about Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Book Collective

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

The page may not meet Wikipedia's notability; perhaps - redirect to Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs BoraVoro (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Museums and libraries, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @BoraVoro for your suggestion to delete this page. Maybe to share some details around why I thought it might be good to have a separate page on the Open Book Collective - this Open Access platform and community has been developed out of the Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs project, but as the COPIM project has ended and the Open Book Collective itself has matured and now is its own legal entity, I thought it might make more sense to have a separate entry for that initiative. I agree that the current state of the page is still rudimentary, but my hope is that this will be soo growing to include more detailed information around key collaborations, etc. in the space of non-profit OA book publishing, so would be grateful if this could be given space here on Wikipedia going forward. Thanks so much for your consideration, and all best, Flavoursofopen (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you @Flavoursofopen for your passion and work. I'm not entirely in favor of deletion at this point. I am open to changing or withdrawing my vote. BoraVoro (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added a stub tag to the page. Looking over the coverage of the Open Book Collective on the web, it appears notable enough but the article is just starting and does need work. In this case we should follow Wikipedia's policy of improving an article rather than deleting it.WP:EDITING Myotus (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, fails WP:NGO. I cannot find any sourcing that is fully independent of the organizaiton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The OBC is a full UK-registered Charity, see https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/5219053 Flavoursofopen (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flavoursofopen That does not prove notability Mach61 04:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, apologies, I misunderstood - there are indeed more independent sources, e.g.
https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2023/11/open-book-collective-collective-path-toward-an-open-and-sustainable-monograph-future/

https://subscriptionsmanager.jisc.ac.uk/catalogue/2840

Flavoursofopen (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flavoursofopen The University of California webpage was written by a Chair for the OBC, so it isn't independent. Webpage #2 is literally selling a subscription to the OBC. Mach61 16:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mach61, thanks for this - and apologies again, but your points for me quickly raise another, more substantial issue - namely what is actually meant by "independence" here ... i.e. how far removed from an institution do you have to be to count as "independent"?

Would e.g. this source [1](https://open-access.network/services/news/artikel/finanzielle-unterstuetzung-fuer-open-access-buecher) count as "independent"? Would official statements of the OBC's international funders or evolving network of universities, infrastructures, etc - all of thems independent, well-recognised entities - suffice, would research articles such as [2](https://journal.dbs.ie/index.php/dbs/article/view/119/65), mentioning the OBC? Like, what counts as enough?

As an aside, for me it's quite frustrating that a not-for-profit charity such as the Open Book Collective that is clearly working to do the same for OA books as Wikipedia does for encyclopedic knowledge - to remove barriers to access to knowledge overall - and with similar open mission & values is being sidelined by such artifically-erected barriers ... and I see the argument for due process etc. but again, when is enough? Flavoursofopen (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A prior "no consensus" closure was vacated per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 28. This can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. I could not find anything beyond the resources cited here which are authored by persons from the project's institutions (well, other than the UK gov entry and that is a factual register including all NGOs). These sources could be included to support facts, but they do not support notability. Lamona (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamini Aiyar

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable tag since 2012, most references are WP:PSTS or WP:SPS. May be in the news recently due to stepping down as CEO, but otherwise not notable. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Organizations, Delhi, and United Kingdom. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's the head of Centre for Policy Research; she seems to qualify under WP:NPROF.— Moriwen (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No longer the head. Plus WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 16:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That she is no longer the head doesn't subtract any notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 15:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Google News search whose timeframe ends before her recent resignation: [19]. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of refs for this. Desertarun (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Others

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

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

Redirects

Templates

England

Jordan Palin

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. Google news yields 2 possible third party sources but they are routine coverage of retiring and missing out on a season. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and England. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Ivo Steel

(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" [20] but it's barely a few paragraphs. This is also a brief mention [21]. 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]

Denis Ingoldsby

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

Fails WP:GNG.Theroadislong(talk) 22:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails all WP:GNG.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Henry Burke Cooper

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

All referencing appears to be from Oxford, UK-specific remembrance group publications. Cooper served honorably, and died, for an incredibly honorable cause but Wikipedia is not a memorial. GPL93 (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Spain, and United Kingdom. GPL93 (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added four citations from books that mention him. (Most sources refer to him under his stage name "Edward Burke".) Nvss132 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most are quick mentions and don't appear to go in-depth on the subject. I'm not sure that's enough to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Arben

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

Lacks independent, sig/in-depth coverage in RS and does not meet NMODEL. Earlier PROD'd by @Voorts: Flagged as UPE. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per my PROD and nom. The sources that were added since my PROD are either unreliable or borderline and don't contain significant coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this meets WP:NMODEL. According to WP:NMODEL: This guideline applies to actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities. Such a person may be considered notable if: (1) The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

In this case of this young model, Natasha Arben as I read from the page, she "has appeared in the Frontis Piece of Country Life Magazine,^[1] and has appeared on the front covers of L'Officiel Monaco,^[2], L’Officiel Cyprus^[3] and L’Officiel Ibiza.^[4]"

For me, these features can be classified as significant roles according to WP:NMODEL. She didn't pay the magazines to feature her on their covers. She earned these organically and meritoriously as a professional model. This is the major reason I de-prodded the page. Let other editors weigh in on this. Maltuguom (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Collins (speedway rider)

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. A search for sources could not find any third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and England. LibStar (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find any 2ndary sources talk about it Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 01:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [22] says the most notable things he did were to win a junior competition at age 15, and having famous relatives. Notability is not inherited. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Pratt

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. A search for sources only found namesakes. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and England. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV of the subject as the result of an internet search only yields either self-published sites or other wikis that do not cite references. Prof.PMarini (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nominator; the subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT as there are no significant sources available to establish notability. The currently cited sources are primary. GrabUp - Talk 12:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honey_G (rapper)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable reality TV contestant. She has had no career beyond being a novelty act on one series on The X Factor, with no success in the industry outside of that. SnookerLoopyOneFourSeven (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability isn't a measure of talent; it's a measure of significant coverage in reliable sources. Subject is still getting coverage years after X-Factor. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The link is to a disambiguation page. It should be Honey G (rapper). Athel cb (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep as to both the individual, for whom flash-in-the-pan coverage is coverage still, and the disambiguation page necessitated by their ambiguity with another equally obscure topic. BD2412 T 16:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Spencer Stephens

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

Actor primarily known for one part in one movie. Accordingly, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. There are plenty of sources discussing the one movie and one part, but none for other significant acting parts. Tagged for notability since 2018. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. C F A 💬 14:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He was nominated for a Golden Globe, which is usually enough to be considered notable. C F A 💬 14:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Omen#Cast: that is what he's notable for and it's sourced. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles on his arrest clearly show there has been continued coverage of this person.★Trekker (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy O'Hagan

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

Does this pass WP:PROF? The citations for his books and papers seem limited so me, to the point where I am unconvinced of notability. Uhooep (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article as nominated already had enough in-depth sources about his books (four about one and three about the other) for WP:AUTHOR. Citation counts are often not meaningful for academics in book-publishing fields. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per David Eppstein -- reviews are the most important for book-publishing fields and there are more than enough here. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant reviews of his books in academic publications. Lamona (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given that reviews of his books means he passes WP:NAUTHOR. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ripton

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

Non-notable rugby player, sources are all routine coverage or borderline-primary sources ("a history of the club"), no evidence of international play so fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Rugby league, Rugby union, and England. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have any of the sources been looked into, or a newspaper search been done? He played well over 100 games for the Hull Kingston Rovers, a top-tier team. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medwyn Goodall

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

This appears to be a vanity page for a musician. While his body of work is extensive, I cannot find any substantial online coverage of him to fulfill WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. The second reference states that he has topped the UK music charts twice, but this appears to be a fanzine of questionable reliability and I can't find any mention of him at the official chart website. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've searched the official charts database, and I agree with the nominator, I am unable to find evidence of charting (though potentially it could be so far back in time to not be available online), including under his alternate name. However - there is a WP:RSMUSIC Allmusic staff bio available, which is both non-trivial coverage and confirms gold-certification. Potentially with more verification and coverage this may be a keep. ResonantDis_tortion 13:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found this Billboard mention that one of his records sold 50,000 copies here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HELLO ALL - I am the ARTIST - COMPOSER/recording artist. This page looks as though it was originally created by fans. However I do ask it is NOT deleted WHY >> I am an international award winning artist (instrumental music) 6 gold disc, 1 platinumn and a life achievement award, at least 4 million fans international. I also own a record label managing other artists. A 33yr career. My own radio show also. UK based. Numerous hits. Career is still ongoing. Instrumental music doesnt tend to be found in charts or have the hype of pop music so whilst I am not as trackable you will find me all over itunes, spotify, Amazon, Facebook, youtube, google, as one of the most famous artists of my genre. Medwyngoodall (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO ALL - I am the ARTIST - COMPOSER/recording artist. This page looks as though it was originally created by fans. However I do ask it is NOT deleted WHY >> I am an international award winning artist (instrumental music) 6 gold disc, 1 platinumn and a life achievement award, at least 4 million fans international. I also own a record label managing other artists. A 33yr career. My own radio show also. UK based. Numerous hits. Career is still ongoing. Instrumental music doesnt tend to be found in charts or have the hype of pop music so whilst I am not as trackable you will find me all over itunes, spotify, Amazon, Facebook, youtube, google, as one of the most famous artists of my genre Medwyngoodall (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are the notability guidelines Wikipedia follows for keeping articles on musicians: WP:MUSICBIO. We need reliable sources (WP:RS) to show the article subject meets the criteria. At present it's unlikely there are enough sources, so if you can provide such references that would significantly help. (Note I have been unable to verify the Gold certifications via the British Phonographic Industry website, so help on that would also be useful). ResonantDis_tortion 07:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley town fair

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

This article appears to be about a livestock market that has changed date and location a few times. I was able to find a reference to medieval Saturday markets, but that 1. doesn't support the implied claim of continuity 2. still wouldn't be a claim of notability since most medium sized towns have markets of one form or another.

Looking at a current list of What's on in Beverley, there's nothing with this exact name. It's clearly the case that there are and were several markets, fairs, festivals and other community events in Beverley - searching online brings up results for the Festival of Christmas, Beverley Puppet Fest before any mention of a livestock fair - none individually notable enough for a Wikipedia article.

I would redirect to Beverley#Culture and amenities. As the article is currently entirely unsourced, I don't believe there's anything that needs merging or preserving. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, United Kingdom, and England. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Beverley#Culture and amenities. A brief sentence of its existence could be supported with this source, I don't think it needs more than that but as it seems to have been a central trading point before the development of Hull it could be at least worth a mention. Suonii180 (talk) 19:30, 4 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!} 16:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Davey

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

None of the sources presently used establish notability (either due to not saying much about Davey, or not being RS, or not being independent), and I wasn't able to find significant coverage of Robin Davey in reliable sources, only mentions. There also seems to be COI editing in the history of the article, such as edits from User:Growvision01. toweli (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Photography, United Kingdom, and England. toweli (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Canary Effect. This film seems to be his greatest accomplishment, but I do not find sufficient sources about him to support an article. I agree with NOM that the sources in the article are very weak, and I didn't find anything better. Note that there are other Robin Davey's who show up in a search, mainly one who is an animator based in Berlin. I'm pretty sure that is a different person but I couldn't prove it. Lamona (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Draper

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Only secondary sources in the article and found during WP:BEFORE check are match reports with surface level coverage of the subject. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and England. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I am happy with the sources in the article, young player with on going career, although somewhat primary heavy, there seems enough to show basic. Govvy (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you believe contain significant coverage of the subject? AlexandraAVX (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG and SIGCOV is only intended for non-specific topics per WP:SNG. Please see BASIC and SPORTBASIC for notability of people (basic criteria) as well as for athletes (additional criteria per WP:SPORTSPERSON). Hence there is a distinct difference for people compared to general topics: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". CNC (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. All I see here are primary sources, passing mentions, and some YouTube clips. Let'srun (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (contributor). I tried improving this to bring it back to mainspace, based on elements of BASIC per SPORTBASIC (the guidelines that covers the notability of people and athletics), as a combination of secondary sources, rather than the need for exclusive SIGCOV (the guidelines that covers the notability of general topics). So far there is Sky Sports and BBC for this, which I believe is beyond trivial, and borderline BASIC per Govvy comment. It's otherwise unfortunately that the BBC's Women's Football Show episodes are no longer available, as I remember distinct post-game coverage of Draper after her initial goal; that of her international career, prospects and style of play (beyond ROUTINE), that would certainly cross the threshold for basic notability (people and sports-related). I'll try find a copy of this somewhere to see if it could be used as a cite av media ref, even if not possible as an online source. I think it's also fair to assume basic based on "they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level", that of being top scorer in the U17 Euro qualifying, as subjectively the U17 Euros are the highest level of competition at that age range, though I can understand how this is intended for senior competitions only, as well as only a guide to likelihood of notability, as opposed to notability itself. Either way, it wouldn't be too much of a loss if the page get's deleted, as I suspect there will be SIGCOV soon enough for it to return. It would be unfortunate for an active WSL player to have their page deleted, but based on policy/coverage it'd be understandable. I can only assume it's age-related as to why there isn't further coverage, given she would be one of the very few active WSL players to have scored a league goal and not have an article. CNC (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have added a third source for notability [23], so per above comment, that should cover SPORTBASIC. The online source is unavailable, but can be verified here, or otherwise by requesting archival footage from the BBC for non-commercial purposes if preferred (but otherwise nothing wrong with citing media as RS per WP:PUBLISHED). I realise as well that ROUTINE only covers local sources for sport, so with BBC and Sky Sports, game coverage counts for multiple sig cov. At least, I think it's hard to argue that coverage of scoring the winning goal in an important game isn't significant. We can get round to the YT argument if needed, but as it's a verified account from a reliable source (Sky Sports Football) it is "inheriting their level of reliability" per WP:RSPYOUTUBE so shouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Routine is definitely not restricted to local sources; per policy: For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. NSPORT's requirement that local sources cannot be routine game coverage does not mean only local sources can be routine game coverage. The video is primary and does not contain encyclopedic coverage: it is routine match commentating and amounts to no more than a sentence or two at most: absolutely not SIGCOV. If this was sufficient for NSPORT purposes we would have articles on every DI and probably DII college football player. JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons stated above, but also worth adding here that Draper recently signed a pro contract with Leicester. Until now, her WSL appearances had been as an academy player mostly coming off the bench, so reasonable chance of her making match day squads more often. Delete this article and we could end up having to restore it long before Christmas. Leonstojka (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The sources present in the article seem enough to WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is far too weak and transactional to meet GNG and especially YOUNGATH, and SPORTCRIT is absolutely not met by one or two sentences of unscripted video commentary on one match. JoelleJay (talk) 23:38, 1 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!} 20:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no instance of WP:SIGCOV in an independent, reliable source as required under WP:NSPORT, and thus the subject also fails WP:GNG which requires multiple instances. Sourcing is limited to WP:ROUTINE match coverage, stats pages, and coverage in affiliated sources. Per a "keep" voter's assertion that she may become more notable in the future given her career prospects, I would be open to a "draftify" outcome if others believe that would be productive; ping me if so and I'll reconsider my current !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as this appears to be the case that notability is not quite there, but due to the age of the subject and current state of the article, 'sufficient' notability could exist within the next year. C 679 10:55, 5 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!} 19:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Northern Ireland

Others

Scotland

2nd XV Leagues in Scotland

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

Non-notable league, unreferenced. Fails WP:GNG. I haven't found any coverage online, though admittedly, I'm not familiar with this topic area at all. As such, please ping me if sources are found. Thanks. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 08:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and Scotland. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 08:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finn Ecrepont

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

Fails GNG, lacks SIGCOV. Dougal18 (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The way the Ayrshire Post went on and on about him, there's enough coverage to meet GNG. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. One Daily Record source is decent - where is the rest? If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just from googling his name, there are at least five stories online which focus on him (so not mentions in general match reports or counting any of the stories from his 60-yard goal). The Ayrshire Post have also published at least six stories about him specifically, I don't know how many of these are online though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Hawkshaw

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

Hawkshaw fails GNG with a lack of SIGCOV. Dougal18 (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see nothing wrong with the article, a full professional Scotland footballer with good basic coverage. Passes WP:BASIC in my view. Govvy (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Third party sourcing. WP:GNG passes.BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 12/17 sources are either stats or non-independent of Hawkshaw. Donegallive - Hawkshaw injured an opponent, Courier - he's playing after concussion, Daily Record 1 - "while Dean Hawkshaw has stepped up his rehabilitation from a knee injury", Daily Record 2, routine transfer news and Cumnock Chronicle "GLENAFTON brought new signing Dean Hawkshaw, pictured, into the starting 11 on Saturday and he made an instant impact." That isn't a GNG pass or a pass of BASIC. Dougal18 (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Orr (footballer)

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

Fails GNG. None of the sources provide SIGCOV of him and I couldn't find any online. Dougal18 (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator. Significant coverage is not visible. Was not able to find better or deeper coverage myself. C 679 11:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Gallagher

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

Fails GNG Dougal18 (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Young Conservatives

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

Zero secondary sources. Completely fails WP:NORG. Little more than an advertisement and directory listing. AusLondonder (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Scotland. AusLondonder (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scottish Conservatives; as an AtD and a not implausible search term. Precedent for this, too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Young Labour plus other subnational jurisdictions (Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Canada, South Australia, Virginia, USA). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Scotland is not a subnational jurisdiction. The Scottish Conservatives function as a separate party. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Scotland not being a sovereign state means it is a subnational jurisdiction. AusLondonder (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Admittedly the usage of the word nation can be contradictory, especially as the UK is said to be composed of four nations, with Scotland being one of those. (Although in official use the term is country rather than nation). Nevertheless, as AusLondoner indicates, subnational here is being used within the context of nation being synonymous with sovereign state (as with the other examples from Canada, Australia and the US). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge Insufficient notability for standalone article. Relevant text could be merged in Scottish Conservatives. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. Plenty of sourcing available. Youth wings of major political parties are generally seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No type of organisation is inherently notable. Please provide sources to satisfy WP:NORG. AusLondonder (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My search shows passing mentions, although I see no clear easy pass of WP:NONPROFIT or the WP:GNG. Even if those could be well satisfied, WP:NOPAGE has relevancy - community consensus when this type of party wing is discussed appears to show a preference for subnational youth wings being folded into the appropriate subnational party wings (or national party). Three editors have indicated that they do not feel there is sufficient material to justify a standalone page, I'm happy to change my !vote, but more than a WP:SOURCESEXIST response is required. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for a clearer consensus that Scottish Conservatives is an appropriate redirect/merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:04, 1 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!} 23:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wales

Others

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

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

^ "Miss Natasha Eloise Arben". everand.com. 23 June 2021. Retrieved 25 April 2024.
^ "Elegance Incarnate: Natasha Arben's Digital Cover Story". lofficielmonaco.com. 24 August 2023. Retrieved 25 April 2024.
^ "Interview With Digital Cover Star Olivia Arben and Natasha Arben". lofficiel.cy. 24 August 2023. Retrieved 25 April 2024.
^ "Elegance Incarnate: Natasha Arben's Digital Cover Story". lofficielibiza.com. 25 August 2023. Retrieved 25 April 2024.

[1] "Miss Natasha Eloise Arben". everand.com. 23 June 2021. Retrieved 25 April 2024.

[LOL-2] "Elegance Incarnate: Natasha Arben's Digital Cover Story". lofficielmonaco.com. 24 August 2023. Retrieved 25 April 2024.

[3] "Interview With Digital Cover Star Olivia Arben and Natasha Arben". lofficiel.cy. 24 August 2023. Retrieved 25 April 2024.

[4] "Elegance Incarnate: Natasha Arben's Digital Cover Story". lofficielibiza.com. 25 August 2023. Retrieved 25 April 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 == United Kingdom ==
 <!-- New AFD discussions should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penistone FM}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Switch Scotland}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Through_the_Dragon's_Eye_episodes}}

Revision as of 12:20, 15 April 2024

United Kingdom

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

England

Others

Northern Ireland

Others

Scotland

Others

Wales

Others