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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:41, 6 January 2021

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 keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLAG Linux and GNU

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

Discontinued Linux distribution with no updates for nearly a decade CallLetters (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CallLetters (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CallLetters (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CallLetters (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia actually does keep articles about subjects that are of historical importance, not just ongoing events. This subject meets WP:GNG and thus qualifies to be retained. - Ahunt (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep despite inadequate nominator's rationale, per 1st nomination, ~~this is not a notable distribution.~~ On second look at article sources, seems to meet GNG. Elizium23 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contains multiple independent, reliable and sign sources hence meeting WP:GNG. Eyebeller 23:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being discontinued is irrelevant for meeting WP:GNG. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Barely meets GNG. The Brixton Linux Action Group sound quite a bit more interesting than their distribution, so I could see myself supporting a content move. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG plus when sources are evaluated again NSOFTWARE (essay) Wikipedia:Notability (software)#Reliability and significance of sources they demonstrate N. // Timothy :: talk 12:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ebs Akintade

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

A grossly undersourced BLP (refs are IMDb and a BBC programme information page) with promo issues – appears to be an autobiography. I can't find anything that would establish that he meets NBIO. Hence delete. Blablubbs|talk 11:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, not sure why this is being considered for deletion. I am a British broadcaster and presenter. Is it factually incorrect? Please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebuaki (talk • contribs) 12:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: confirmed WP:AUTOBIO with most the article being original research. Pulisi (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 17:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is this from a tabloid but I doubt it's enough on its own Spiderone 13:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, funnily enough thats not been mentioned or cited in the article till now when I added it, controversial content is better than unverifiable original research. Pulisi (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange how that doesn't even get a passing mention when it's actually the only think that he seems to be known for. Spiderone 13:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BASIC and none of his roles make him inherently notable enough for an article Spiderone 13:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See this diff for when he removed a deletion template before, stating This page should not be deleted please as a reason. Since then no refs have been added except one mentioned above and all that was added was original reseach liekly in an attempt to establish notability (but without sources).Pulisi (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a run of the mill reporter. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a cool guy to have a drink with and chat about shit. I'm sure he has some stories that would be fun to hear. Not notable enough to pass GNG and be included. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 17:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Google hits are predominantly in websites/sources not independent of him. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a minor local radio reporter. 107.8 Radio Jackie is a fine radio station but its news team largely consists of students and trainees, not a particularly notable role, and if we had an article for every BBC local radio guest we would be here for decades. In addition, it looks like the guy has written most of the article himself. CallLetters (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)≥[reply]
Delete it seems he isn't a notable radio reporter and just a locally. Also there isn't enough in-depth reliable sources. Fatzaof (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 18:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avant-garde Pictures

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

A film production company that has never produced a notable film. They seem to put out short (2 minute) films and YouTube videos. There is nothing available to show a passing of WP:NCORP or WP:GNG or any other relevant notability criteria. None of the award coverage seems to be from reliable sources.

Article created by an SPA. Spiderone 19:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Language on the article seems explicitly promotional.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — The Earwig ^talk 03:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Energy managers association

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

Promotional piece on a non notable “association” who are yet to be discussed with in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search shows hits in websites which are “LinkedIn-like” and a review of the sources used in the article shows only primary sources are optimized. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:RS, and WP:NCORP. The citations are entirely self-referential. If this is not a walled garden, it looks and smells like one. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Michael Howard, 21st Earl of Suffolk. Daniel (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Stanhope, Countess of Harrington

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

I don't see an ounce of independent notability. Known only through marriages/kinship. WP:NOTINHERITED. Geschichte (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete marriage to low level nobles is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one or other of her husbands, who as earls are notable (and not "low-level"). Ingratis (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an appropriate target, which is what we've done probably 100 times. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to which, if any, husband?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on previous !vote above: redirect to her first husband Michael Howard, 21st Earl of Suffolk, because he has children by her, including the (probable) future 22nd earl. Ingratis (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Quinlan

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

Cannot find reliable, independent coverage of this writer, researcher and educator. May be be WP:TOOSOON. Has been tagged for notability since 2017. Tacyarg (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A great person and very able as well. Skilled in various fields but unfortunately, he does not meet the requirement to be notable as per guidelines laid by Wikipedia. Neither WP:SIGCOV nor WP:GNG or any else. I can be wrong, especially if some sources are found but i don't think there are enough. And BLP articles that are poorly referenced are subject to great criticism. Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 11:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found what appears to be a reliably published review of one of his books in a language I don't read [1] but one review isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR, I didn't find more, and the sources we have also aren't enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. Thousands of teachers are now Google certified. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fuzheado | Talk 17:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Leask

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

Not sure this meets WP:PROF. There are some highly cited works when searching on scholar such as "Learning to teach in the secondary school: A companion to school experience" from 1995 with over 350 citations and several other books with between ~200 and 75 citations, all coauthored, but independent sourcing is lacking. The article appears to have been extensively edited by the subject. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: This article is literally a resume. A lack of third party references, extensive editing by the subject, and the subject in question is not notable. VERSACESPACE 06:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Deletion is not cleanup (see WP:SURMOUNTABLE). However, the article in its current state is very low-quality, and cleanup in this case may require a fresh start. I'm unsure the subject counts as non-notable with that many highly cited works, though. I suspect the article can -- maybe even should -- be kept, but I'm unsure at putting in a keep vote at this point. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal Weak keep. Just passes WP:Prof on GS cites (maybe a bit WP:Too soon). The professional section is written atrociously and needs revision. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Too soon??? She's 70, & her books go back 30 years. See before the over-drastic supposedly COI removals. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it's not exactly too soon for the subject, the volume of books doesn't automatically grant notability by itself. And the independent coverage of her books is limited -- we have 4 reliable source reviews in total. I do think that the combination of WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF gives a solid case for keeping. Comment that Xxanthippe is referring to earlier versions of the article, which I heartily agree were written atrociously. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article definitely needs work but 12 books with Routledge, a major publisher, five of which appear highly to moderately cited, and will probably have been reviewed somewhere. Additionally one fairly highly cited paper with only a single coauthor. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:DINC. Appears to pass both WP:AUTHOR (reviews including [2] [3] [4] [5]) and WP:PROF#C1 (four pubs with over 100 cites on Google Scholar). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article has been stubbed by XOR'easter; commentators should look at the historical version [6] at deletion nomination, which (though direly written) makes the subject's areas of notability clearer and contains many more sources for evaluation. ETA: Leask's De Montfort profile[7] has a lot of notability relevant material. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to further information on subject's notability and significant article cleanup since the time of AfD. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF C1. When proposed for AfD, I think there was a reasonable case for WP:TNT, but this no longer applies after WP:HEY by Espresso Addict and XOR'easter. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Worthy of being kept. Clearly, satisfies WP:NAUTHOR. Not sure about WP:NPROF but i think it does. Slightly misses out on WP:SIGCOV but i think the sum total is enough to justify her notability. Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 16:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above, article has been cleaned up and notability established to the point where it satisfies requirements, if only just. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 15:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am satisfied now that they meet WP:NAUTHOR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now it's improved. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cosima Shaw

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

Possible non notable actress. Almost no third party sources given or found. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by the nominator (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 13:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tortoise Media

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

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC) ~~News website that does not meet notability thresholds- independent sources consist of WP:ROUTINE coverage of the website's launch. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The coverage currently on the page [8][9] looks promising to me; it has enough detail to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH, which is the appropriate guidance on what is and isn't too routine to count (WP:ROUTINE is for events). I'm therefore leaning toward a keep. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am looking at WP:NMEDIA and seeing it is (too soon). (No awards, etc.) Nonetheless, a lot of other media outlets and journalists are following this. Their modality is the Think In, which attracts participation. Some criticism was found of their sponsorship by BP, a known fossil fuel organisation. While it looks WP:TOOSOON, my creative sense is that this the future of media and news online in Europe, if not worldwide. BBC News director and Times editor James Harding is a definite heavyweight in the field of news media. Keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG/WP:NPERIODICAL. Coverage includes: [10], [11], [12], [13]. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Pisenti

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

Promotional autobiographical article on an individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. All sources used in the article are unreliable and a before search doesn’t turn up anything substantial ether. This is a blatant WP:GNG fail. Celestina007 (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm still working on this article and I only published it so other editors can add too. I have taken the precaution of saving the code though. There are many sources to this and I will add them soon. So please don't delete it.

RealLifeLorefan80 (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I am not promoting anything. I'm just inspired by Pisenti's videos and tried to make a page similar to Sam Denby. I know my username says RealLifeLore in it but it clearly has "fan" in it.

RealLifeLorefan80 (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But Once I find more reliable sources, can I redo the article?

RealLifeLorefan80 (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need to forcefully apply out anti-autobiography policies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To answer your question RealLifeLorefan80, if the article is deleted and you can provide further evidence of notability you may absolutely recreate the article. It will most likely have to withstand another AfD so make sure to include strong reliable sources. DO NOT be discouraged by the haters here on this platform. Some have nothing better to do with their time than sit on Wikipedia trashing the hard work of others just because they don't like it. Wikipedia is not here as their personal encyclopedia containing only what they deem as important. In regards to the current article, I agree with the nominator, who put a lot of effort into a search, that the subject does not, yet, meet notability criteria for inclusion. I say delete as per WP:GNG & WP:TOOSOON. To fan80, keeping working and digging for sources and please continue editing and creating here. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska:

No worries, I agree with Celestina007 and your suggestion. Thanks for your kind message. I won't be discouraged and I'll keep making new articles and contribute for a long time. RealLifeLorefan80 (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, zero WP:RS for a WP:BLP, and WP:NOTRESUME. In 2008, we could WP:AGF, but in 2021, this is a thumb in the eye. We literally can't even verify this person exists. I see the consensus that YouTubers are rarely notable, much as my boyfriend. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lie, he's written a book and keep your boyfriend out of this. Though I am happy for it to be deleted. AussieCoinCollector (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — The Earwig ^talk 02:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allia (enterprise charity)

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

A non notable organization that has no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search shows links to primary sources, sponsored posts and announcements. A review of the sources used in the article mirror the result of the before search. WP:SIGCOV is definitely not satisfied. I did however stumble upon this source but I believe it isn’t sufficient. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Possibly draftify in userspace to allow other sources to be found, but it's iffy. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elliot321, yes Elliot, it is very much iffy to put it mildly. Celestina007 (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I generally prefer draftifying for recent articles created in good faith. Otherwise I'd be fully in favor of normal deletion. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — All of the sources given don't include much information, and, as stated above, fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanoscar21 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify: Searches find announcement-driven coverage of various partnership projects involving Allia, but these fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. The Guardian also published a brief piece describing Allia's business model in 2011 [14], and they are mentioned in documents from the Scottish Government [15] (with whom they partner in project funding); such coverage could help towards WP:NCORP but is not I think sufficient. AllyD (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Looks like the discussion has run out of steam. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thrybergh Academy

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. Sources in the article are dead links and do not appear to be IS. BEFORE revealed nothing with SIGCOV // Timothy :: talk 17:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Timothy, you are using that erroneous template again. I have answered all the points in the template on a nother page. We need to compare each one against the actual policy not our own preferences. Questions, did you read the article and discover the 10 RS references already given? Did you follow up the URN and Ofsted link in the infobox? Did you run a check on schools week or the TES (registring is free)? Did you run a google check on special measures? Did you read the two rotherham advertiser recent articles? ClemRutter (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Here are your 12 sources

This is a dead link, appears to be a database report, fails V, almost certainly SIGCOV: John Doxey. "THRYBERGH COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL". Retrieved 4 May 2017.
This is a dead link from the school, not IS: "About the School: Thrybergh Academy & Sports College". Vle.thryberghssc.org. Retrieved 4 May 2017.
This is a government funding agreement, not IS, not SIGCOV: "Freedom of Information Request funding/140254_Thrybergh Academy Sports College_Rotherham" (PDF). cscpprod.blob.core.windows.net/. 2012. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
About a minor investigation into school spending that "appears excessive", not SIGCOV: "'Limit lunch portions to save money', say Agnew's advisers". Schools Week. 28 March * 2019. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2003 Report
A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2005 Report
A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2006 Report
A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2009 Report
A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2013 Report
A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2017 Report
A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2019 Report
A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2020 Corvid Report

ClemRutter, tell everyone which of the above is an INDEPENDENT RELIABLE SOURCE with SIGCOV showing notability since you listed the "10 RS references already given? Did you follow up the URN and Ofsted link in the infobox?" in your post?

The problem here is clearly you do not understand what a independent reliable source is or what significant coverage means. Other than these there is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage, the kind any school would receive, nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject Directly and Indepth. // Timothy :: talk 01:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue: Hi, firstly getting personal, do get in touch if you are in the London area so we can share a drink, and I can show you around a bit. We do have a London Virtual Meetup 163 if you want to get virtual.

But your analysis of the sources is way off beam. Firstly if you read an Ofsted Report you will discover just how full and rich they are, suggesting they are 'routine' is far from the truth. I see you have spent a lot of time documenting former CCCP institutiions- the UK does not work like that. I try not to edit US schools articles as frankly I don't understand the system--how do US schools operate without an independent assessment system?

In UK schools the interest is finance, governance, teaching philosophy, outcomes, the buildings, the communities served. We have one routine government source known as GIAS- we link to that through the URN in the infobox. There you will find the links to previous schools, and a link to all available independent ofsted reports. That is your starting point. WP:I is clear that GIAS as government report is good, and it does fulfil W:SIGCOV as it addresses the topic directly (there is no mention of quantity of information needed) I didn't even mention that one. If you start examining the Ofsted reports, you will find several types- section 5s are critical to the schools, section 8s often lead to section 5s but for our point of view they both are excellent sources. They both give a technical description of the school and its intake and current enrollment. In the body of the report is a critical description of various aspects of management, teaching, safeguarding etc, with examples that can be useful to us, but IMHO not as useful for stubs and starts . We have the bonus that later ones have a OGL license which is CC-BY-SA 3.0.

There are a mass of school articles that need to be destubbed Category:North American school stubs for example, I think we do have a bigger problem with internationalisation, and the large number of Indian schools that are intuatively important but are located in areas with poor English language coverage. That's for another day. ClemRutter (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NORG, per source analysis above. (t · c) buidhe 11:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis of the sources, greater discussion addressing the points raised above, and the involvement of additional editors would all be helpful in establishing clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Available sources sufficient to establish notability, as with any other British secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A question regarding whether Ofsted reports should be considered independent sources demonstrating notability has been posted to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Ofsted school inspection repoorts for discussion. // Timothy :: t | c | a 01:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a close rerun of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putteridge High School ClemRutter (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, but I did mention it. If you decide to do a deletion review to reopen it, wait until after the noticeboard thread closes. // Timothy :: t | c | a 12:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The conversation at RS/N is (slowly) developing a consensus that reports are reliable but do not confer notability. That conversation and this deletion discussion need to develop slightly more for that consensus to be established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is well sourced and notable. Bleaney (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Thrybergh - In my view, Ofsted reports don't move the notability needle, as I explained at RSN. The remaining sources don't seem adequate, either: refs 1, 2, and 3 fail the GNG criteria (as explained by TimothyBlue), and number 4 refers to the school just once in a lengthy article about a broader topic. Putting that all together, we have one trivial and tangential reference and nothing else. That fails WP:GNG, as far as I'm concerned. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have expanded this article with independent references that I believe help further support notability. Bleaney (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UK Kindness Movement

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

No evidence that it was ever an actual organisation. It appears it was some sort of PR initiative by Act Against Bullying, but doesn't appear to be notable from any sources. It's virtually an orphan article Seaweed (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Googling the subject returns nothing but blog posts, social media posts, and clones of this same Wikipedia article. Clearly non-notable. Zacwill (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 12:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. // Timothy :: t | c | a 04:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santoro London

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

Not notable. As mentioned in the last AFD, the awards are spurious and probably paid for. This article was written almost entirely by SPAs, some of which have already been banned as promo/spam accounts. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article appears to be well sourced. If the award section is sketchy in some way, you could simply remove it entirely and the article could still keep the remaining content. If the awards are not valid you need proof of that. Regards, VERSACESPACE 06:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the valiant refbombing efforts — mostly with sources of the poorest quality, and some cited multiple times to make it look impressive — there's nothing to suggest notability; fails WP:GNG (that one Indy reference notwithstanding) and WP:CORP. How this utterly un-encyclopaedic promo blurb has survived so long, is beyond me. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comes on as a glorified advert and I can only echo the phrase "utterly un-encyclopaedic". RobinCarmody (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fernox

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

Blatant advertising. All major contributors are banned for advertising. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete: article passes WP:CORP, but due its contributions almost entirely by banned users, may qualify for deletion. If a definite answer is needed, than delete. But I would say get a larger amount of consensus. VERSACESPACE 06:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - paid-for spam; irrespective of whether this company is notable WP:TNT applies. MER-C 12:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for promotion and this article is irredeemably promotional. Blow it up and start again. --Jack Frost (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Fidelity

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

Article is promotional, written like an advertisement. It is not clear that this corporation is notable. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 12:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There are several ideas which have found consensus in this discussion. There is a consensus that this is a notable topic. There is also consensus, including from several editors who believe this article should be kept, that this article, as presently constituted, does not comply with Wikipedia polices and guidelines. While AfD may not be cleanup that does not mean that articles which do not comply with policies and guidelines must be kept indefinitely. There is, instead, consensus that this article should focus only on notable golf courses in order to comply with policies and guidelines. Hopefully with this basis in consensus this interested editors will have a path on how to improve this article to be of encyclopedic use to our readers. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of golf courses in the United Kingdom

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

Failure of WP:NOTDIRECTORY (7. Simple listings). This is an indiscriminate simple list of mostly red-linked non-notable golf courses without any context or clear criteria beyond geography; Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United Kingdom fulfils the latter purpose for articles on notable subjects. Many of the blue links are actually redirects because the club/courses themselves have little to make them independently notable. Finally, such lists are almost impossible to maintain – I spent a fair amount of time trying to tidy this one up and add citations, but there is just no coverage of the subject as as a whole except for databases and directories which are also never up-to-date due to the rate of turnover (new courses, closures, other changes, etc.). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion for the same reasons as above. This and the other similar articles don’t add any coverage to the subject and a category for notable individual courses is sufficient.Tracland (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could easily be turned into a tabled list with info about each club by county. If anything in cases where the clubs might not be notable enough for separate articles, basic data in a list is most useful. † Encyclopædius 16:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per may rationale above, such a task is almost impossible due to the scope (which is everything) and would also violate WP:NOTGUIDE. _wjemather^{please leave a message...}
Keep as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and complement to Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United Kingdom per WP:CLN. Removing any redlink entry that does not actually merit an article would completely obviate the nom's conmplaints, and is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. postdlf (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it actually wouldn't. It would also raise new issues. Such a list would have no determinable or definable criteria for inclusion and as such would serve no purpose other than as an index but without a broad enough scope. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion criteria would be the same as the category. postdlf (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Encyclopædius's argument. LeBron4 (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are 3 to 4 thousand courses in the UK, perhaps 5,000 if we add defunct courses. Bit of black art as to what to include, par-3 courses, pitch and putt? The reality is that this list is not maintained and is worse than useless. What purpose does an out-of-date list serve. None that I can see. The idea that it can "easily be turned into a tabled list with info about each club by county" is pure fantasy, I'm afraid. Not quite as bad as maintaining a list of coffee shops in the UK, but well beyond out present effort level. Nigej (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a straw man; it doesn't need to be a list of every golf course that exists, just the ones that have articles. This was already addressed above. postdlf (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Several point come to mind. 1. For golfing purposes the UK/Ireland is normally thought of as 4 countries. 2. Lists of notable courses could readily be added to articles like Golf in Ireland where there is already such a list. Golf in Wales seems to be attempting to have a complete list, but could be trimmed down to notable courses. I'd have no objection to similar lists for England and Scotland. 3. The current name implies a complete list. If we are going for a partial list we need a rename at the least. In summary my view is that notable courses can be listed as part of a "Golf in X" article. Nigej (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The category structure is subcategorized in the way you suggest for the lists. That's a development matter, not deletion, in any event, and this page title would still be helpful as a set index if those are split off (even if just sublists within the "Golf in X" articles, just as we have Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United Kingdom as a parent category). No rename is necessary, we do not include self-references such as "notable X" in page titles; it has long been understood and supported by consensus that inclusion for most lists is limited just to notable examples (as you could see with nearly every list of companies, lists of people, etc.). postdlf (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are describing the WP world as you would like it, not how it is. Most lists are actually littered with redlinks and/or unlinked entries; they also have defined criteria, unlike what you are suggesting here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The criteria is "golf course" that exists "in the United Kingdom", and it is trivial to additionally limit it to "has an article." It may take some effort, but AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. We do not delete pages for complaints that can be fixed through editing or further development. See also policy at WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        "Exists and has article" are not legitimate or even definable criteria, and ignores the significant number of bluelink redirects in this list. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        You're just saying words at this point. There are clearly plenty of articles on golf courses located in the United Kingdom, as demonstrated by the category. We index articles by what they are per WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTDIR. Good luck on Wikipedia and have a Happy New Year, postdlf (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for being so condescending. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Split and Trim: If the UK is like the US, there will be SIGCOV of this as a group, so it passes LISTN. It also passes CLN/AOAL, it seems useful from a navigation perspective. The lists could be eventually formed into sortable tables with more sourced data, which will enhance its usefulness. CLN states that, "building a rudimentary list of links is a useful step in improving a list. Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive."

I agree the list should be split into 4 articles, both from a maintenance and SIGCOV perspective per WP:LSC, "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." I believe the majority of the RS would be at this level.

As with all lists, the lede needs to precisely state the criteria for inclusion per WP:LSC

I hate lists that are enourmous collections of spam redlinks, these should be removed during the split, with the exception of those that have a clear claim of notability. I understand that redlinks may inspire good articles, but an enourmous collection of redlinks such as this would be better at Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf to encourage others to create articles. The second criteria at WP:CSC does allow for non-notabile list items, but I believe the list would be strongest if it conforms more closely to the third criteria at WP:CSC based on "As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence."

Finally consider removing the galleries.

// Timothy :: talk 20:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove the redlinks, as AfD is not for cleanup. The list has a clear inclusion criteria, and having a category is not a valid reason for deletion, per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I notice a lot of the blue links are to redirects or one sentence stubs. Need to remove the red links and the redirects. If any of the stubs aren't notable delete them. Dream Focus 07:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - While I can see why some editors would see this as a good candidate for deletion, on balance I think this could be a useful list and helpful for navigation and information. However I agree this needs to be reworked. Particularly I feel it needs to be heavily pruned and reduced to notable courses, and certainly only those clubs or course with their own articles should appear on it. As it is, the list has too many minor courses that realistically are never going to have articles and which editors are going to find impossible to keep track of (for instance one of the read links is to Camperdown in Dundee, which has now closed). As an aside there is also a question of whether should it be restricted to active courses or historic ones as well? Dunarc (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:LIST, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:NOTDIR. What a huge mess. We are not a web host to list a whole bunch of golf clubs, most of which are private, many are not notable, and all of which cater to the top 1%. I've seen many complaints about having too many articles about the aristocracy, and while I don't agree completely with it, that seems to be the consensus. I would be willing to change my mind if given good reasons. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the article should be deleted. I voted to delete because I think the article is a list of non notable golf courses that doesn't meet the criteria for a list article. However, I don't understand your other comments. Whether or not a golf course is public or private is unlikely to have any relevance to its general notability nor does the nature of the individuals to which they cater. (By a long way it would be untrue to say all golf courses only cater to the top 1%). The aristocracy appears to have no relevance whatsoever to a list of golf courses. What is the purpose of these comments with regards to whether or not the article should be deleted? Tracland (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, then prune the red links and the redirects that do not lead to golf course articles – per WP:NOTDUPE relative to Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United Kingdom. This is a functional navigational aid that is actually superior to the category, because additional content can be added that category pages do not support. Pruning the red links and stated redirects solves any WP:NOTDIRECTORY issues, and red links for golf courses that meet notability guidelines that do not have articles can be added as long as supporting references from reliable sources are also added. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR. "Keep and clean up" is a cop-out unless you're willing it to do it yourself. I'd keep a bluelinked list with more info, but it's unlikely anybody wants to actually make the effort. If so, they can do it in draft space. Sandstein 13:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NOTDIR keep only the notable courses, remove all others (redlinks). Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of the redlinks are notable (just don't have articles as yet) and lots of the bluelinks are not (redirects or should be deleted/redirected). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has a valid purpose in that it clearly complements Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United Kingdom Spiderone 19:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was clearly to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Dove (sea captain)

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

Shame, because it's a nicely put together article and all. BUT; Lack of lasting notability (unremarkable seadog); WP:ONEEVENT. I don't think the book, published in 1940 and not reprinted, confers notability nor does its part in the film about the Battle of the River Plate. TheLongTone (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of mentions in secondary sources. [16] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Dove's death in 1957 was covered in the New York Times([17]), currently cited in the article. Hawkeye7's simple search also demonstrates plenty of coverage. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MV Africa Shell, clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. Mztourist (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added Times obituary reference Piecesofuk (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the New York Times and The Times obituaries he meets GNG. I agree it's in the range of of WP:ONEEVENT, but for me there's enough verifiable biographical information to make his article more than just a restatement of MV Africa Shell. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then we might as well have articles for Maurice McCarthy Jr. and Marian Elliott as they had longer obits than Dove on the same page of the NYT...Mztourist (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If they are notable for more than one event, yes. I've written GAs based largely on obituaries and I fail to see what's wrong with them as a source for biographies. As you said in your comment, this is a problem of WP:1E and not about the quality of the sources. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that we both know that one obituary alone does not, of course, make someone notable, but rather the combination of reliable sources. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems a good article as far as I can see, enjoyed reading it. Very relevant seeing as he was a prisoner on the Graf Spee during the Battle of the River Plate and was a technical adviser to the film. Another case of #hawtyWikisnobbishness in wanting it removed? BigPhil 15:37; 6 January 2021 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.10.102.252 (talk)
Keep per Modussiccandi. An obit in the New York Times does not confer automatic notability, but it's a heuristic that the person might be notable. Combined with other sources, that is enough for WP:GNG. I have no opinion about the notability of the other persons mentioned. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Melrose (guitarist)

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

Non-notable Irish guitarist. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Bbarmadillo (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure how Irish he is (!), but agree about non-notability: the only source cited is the person's own bio, and a Google search finds not a single secondary source, let alone sigcov. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: delete per nom. The only Irish connection seems to be working with Clannad. ww2censor (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Improvements have been made. And he's not Irish: he lives in Germany and works across Europe and North America. He's not particularly Scottish either, if you listen to him. And for some reason, my search on Google turned up a bunch of references. Go figure. Djdaedalus (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Feel free to add those refs you found; if they demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, they could be material in saving this article. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as he does have a staff written bio at AllMusic here as well as an album review there as well as the German piece referenced in the article. Haven't done a full search, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - per nom. No sigcov. Spleodrach (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With respect to my longtime colleague Atlantic306, the AllMusic bio is a good start but describes Melrose as a sideman in the works of others. His biographical info could be relevant in articles about his groups Twilight and Be Mine or Run, but WP does not have articles on those groups. (There are at least two other bands called Twilight). As an individual, Melrose does not have the independent coverage necessary for notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Shribman

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

See talk for full details. Article was created as a promotional piece and continues to be edited to support the promotional activities of the subject. Infowars420 (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Leaning toward delete. There are a lot of citations, but the quality and depth of sourcing are deficient. Many of the news articles referenced just have brief mentions of his activities, rather than coverage of his background, and the festival lineup/his band's promotional material do nothing for notability. He's not a scientist (despite the peculiar insistence some of those articles have in calling him such), so it's harder to gauge whether this is just TOOSOON. JoelleJay (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are all either not reliable sources or mentions in passing. A google news search shows a couple articles discussing a documentary he made but nothing more; no significant coverage of him personally in WP:RS and so fails WP:GNG. Something is fishy, however - the page was created by a likely COI single-purpose account User:Magd2884, but the nominator is also a single-purpose account with no contributions to Wikipedia besides the PROD and AfD process on this article. Be wary, but if I stumbled upon this article I'd've brought it here myself. FalconK (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FalconK. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disagree on the proposal for deletion. In an ecological emergency, should we be deleting environmentalists and science communicators? Furthermore, what makes an environmentalist noteworthy? Is it the impact of their work or its coverage? MIT Media Lab’s Pantheon study makes it clear that cultural noteworthy-ness / coverage is moving away from thinkers and towards “celebrities”. Should Wikipedia follow this trend too? Looking at articles of other science presenters Samantha Yammine, Lee Constable, Emily Grossman, the subject is of similar noteworthiness. Agreed on the need to improve this article. User:Infowars420, I note that you take general opposition to people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, and I appreciate this; it’s important. However, what is the purpose of an article like this? It does seem to have begun as autobiographical… but one questions to what end. It does not seem to be self-promotion for personal gain – most of his environmental work seems to be voluntary, and he is running an educational charity, supported by a grant from the UK government. Meanwhile, his work is having a significant positive impact. User:JoelleJay, to your point about “scientist”, the OED defines a scientist as a person who is studying or has expert knowledge in one or more of the natural or physical sciences, which is fulfilled by the subject. The Science Council has a narrower definition on their website, which seems to be disputed by… scientists. I will work on an edit today, and gather better sources. Full disclosure – I am part of a small community working to support science communicators. JHay556 (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comment applied more to the requirements for academic notability--if he was a tenure-track professor there would be a good chance his credentials would meet that notability guideline in the future. That said, he does not perform scientific research and his expertise is disputable (a master's (or PhD with no strong followup publication record after) does not and should not establish someone as an "expert"--this would confer dangerous degrees of authority to unqualified people). Especially in environmental science (and vaccines etc.) we should personally promote stringent criteria for whom we call an "expert", as having any wiggle room leads to media propagation of inaccurate descriptions and popular acceptance of unqualified and less-qualified opinions. That doesn't diminish the importance of environmental activists and communicators. You don't need advanced scientific understanding to communicate awareness and information to the public, and being able to do so in a way that reaches the most people is extremely valuable. This is why we need skilled science journalists and activists who can engage communities across socioeconomic and age strata; just because they should not be consulted as experts on the topics they disseminate doesn't mean they aren't a critical component of science education. If this guy has received significant coverage for his science communication, he could very well meet the general notability criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Agreed on these points Joelle, though I'm also not proposing that we list him on Wikipedia as a scientist, hence my limiting to science communicator and environmentalist. I was more replying to you about why external articles might have written about him in this way. JHay556 (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Fellow Wikipedians, inviting feedback and collaboration on today's edits of this article. JHay556 (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria for notability are pretty well established by consensus and we do not have a consensus policy of making exceptions based on whether someone's contributions are for a humanitarian purpose. To keep this article, we would need a showing that Mr. Shribman meets the criteria described in any of WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACADEMICS, or some other part of WP:N. I appreciate your attempt to improve the article, but it remains that the article relies heavily on unreliable sources such as the Facebook page of his own organization. I'd also note that an article in Wikipedia is not a reward for doing good work, it's documentation of what reliable sources have said about the subject. That is one reason we need significant coverage in third-party sources. Also, @User:JHay556, I hate to ask, but do you also have another account? It's unusual to see so much involvement in an AfD from so many accounts that have few edits to other areas of Wikipedia. FalconK (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure what you mean by "relies heavily on unreliable sources such as the Facebook page of his own organization" though - only one reference (27) links to the subject's organisation's Facebook page, and that because it is a video of Caroline Lucas saying the quote. The other Facebook links are all to the organisations / people in question. As for reliable sources / broader coverage, I've cited the Times, News.com.au and NewsHub, which are among the most respectable news sources in the UK, Australia and New Zealand respectively. Other sources include the Metro of London, VICE Media, the Edmund Hilary Fellowship. As for the notability guidelines, if the words "entertainer" and "entertainment" were replaced with "environmentalist" / "science communicator" and "environmentalism" / "science communication" then I don't see why this article, like the others linked above, shouldn't stick, especially with the global context we are in. And yes, just this account - I don't usually do Wikipedia, though some colleagues have been working on other articles and giving me advice on how to do so, so I'm working on this. JHay556 (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on significant coverage such as BBC and The Times, it should stay. I also think anyone that gets invited to speak at TEdx is well vetted and must be an expert in his field to be invited to speak in such a well known conference. BTW, I removed some promotional language and it may need a little more work to make it less promotional sounding. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV. "Significant coverage" for biographies of living persons is a term of art here on Wikipedia. It means that two or more reliable sources have covered the subject personally. Reliable sources include the BBC and The Times, a paper of record. However, the subject of their reports must be more than mere mentions and interviews can not be used to cite specific details about the person's life and work details. Also, we prefer secondary sources, rather than primary sources such as those news outlets, regardless of how reliable they are. The sources must also be independent of the subject, so citations to the person's social media and blogs are not allowed. We also have specific rules about whether certain honors allow for automatic notability (for example, getting a Nobel Prize). Most of the time, being connected to a notable or prestigious institution does not automatically confer notability. Even being associated with an important issue is not mean the person is notable; thousands of people are involved in climate change right now. Giving a TEDX talk is not so prestigious an honor to confer automatic notability. Wikipedians are in the process of cleaning out a lot of non-notable subjects from our encyclopedia; currently we are working on articles created in 2010 and 2011 and we have found there's a lot of non-notable persons who have articles on here. Sorry, but in my opinion, based on past similar cases, this person is not notable yet. Finally, althouigh some offending words have been removed, the article remains in such poor a state, with cites to social media, as to require a total re-write. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bearian gives a very in-depth and cogent argument as to why this person does not currently meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Ronald Gordon Mackay

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

Doesn't seem to meet GNG or NSOLDIER. one decent article of coverage in a source of questionable reliability, I found no other sigcov that would establish GNG Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, nothing notable. Mztourist (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retain The article was previously recommended for deletion in July 2019 and overturned. The relevant discussion appears here>> User_talk:Rosguill/Archive_6 Mackay was the last Scot to be killed in World War 1. It seems that he was the last airman to be killed in combat. 18 members of the Royal Air Force died on 11th November, some in training and some not aircrew. Shipsview (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What RS says that he was the last Scot to die in WWI? Not that that is in any way notable. He didn't die in combat, he died of wounds, as did presumably dozens of others on Armistice Day. Mztourist (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the last Scot, but also the last British aviator to be killed. So, unique on both counts. Shipsview (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROVEIT, provide RS that he was the last British aviator to be killed. Even if you can its doubtful that that establishes notability. Mztourist (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of an aviator being killed with the last hour after MacKay being shot down, so one must suppose that he was the last. I don't think that the Germans said 'Ach! This is the second last airman we will shoot down!' Here is further reading material: a) https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1040606/last-scot-fall-first-world-war-armistice-day b) https://worldwar100.co.uk/portfolio/captain-duncan-ronald-gordon-mackay/ c) https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/13022-capt-duncan-ronald-gordon-mackay-raf/ Shipsview (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"One must suppose" isn't good enough for a weak notability claim. Express is of dubious reliability, worldwar100.co.uk's "Reputably the last Scot to be killed" isn't definitive and www.greatwarforum.org is not RS. Anyway as I said previously being the last Scot to die isn't sufficiently notable, otherwise we'd have to have pages for the last of every nationality to die in the war. Also he died of wounds after the Armistice, so do you have an RS that he was the last Scot and/or RAF airman to die of wounds? I really doubt it. Mztourist (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again: d) http://kenley-rafa.org.uk/RAFA%20Newsletter%20Nov-Jan%202019-woe-1.pdf e) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguished_Flying_Cross_(United_Kingdom) (though not sourced).
So, last Scot, last pilot and the only Empire serviceman buried in the Joef Communal Cemetery, Meurthe-en-Moselle. How unique is that? And QED notable.
Let's now wait to see what support the two cases get. Shipsview (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RAFA Association not RS, particularly saying in one para he was killed in action and then in the next saying he died of his wounds, it can't be both. If it was true it would be covered in multiple RS, but its not. WP cannot be used as a source, particularly as you added McKay's entry yourself in July 2019: [18]. Being the only burial of a particular nationality doesn't establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even without considering whether we can verify this, there seems to be some confusion between uniqueness and notability. Just being unique does not equal notability, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources, which has not been shown. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for confusing you. I have already pointed out that the Wiki entry was unsourced! I was just attempting to show that there was another relevant entry.

Perhaps the article should be moved to Death of Captain Mackay with more focus on that? His life was barely notable, but his death, in my opinion, is. As you say, uniqueness does not necessarily equate to notable. His death on being shot down from the skies over German-held territory resulted in a combination of events that are unique both in themselves and collectively unique, and therefore notable. An example might be the soldier who is awarded a bar to his Waterloo medal is not notable, but if he earns four bars he becomes so. Shipsview (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, he wasn't notable in life and dying of wounds doesn't make him notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try responding to what I wrote, please, to make your comment relevant. I did not list dying of wounds! Shipsview (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did read what you wrote and see nothing in his wounding, death or burial that is independently or cumulatively notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I am not sure if the one award he has won will satisfy WP:SOLDIER, but he does not have significant coverage. Given this is prior to the 1918 and not too much available online, we can't assume there will be other news, unless someone does the research and posts the info.Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches are difficult due to the era in which he lived and died. There is some coverage, as on page 1389 of Flight International (Volume 10, Issue 2), but it seems to be more of simply listing those who have died. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Mills

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

The topic of this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies, and the biography has no citations other than IMDb DillsyOnWiki (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article contains barely a smidgen of biographical or encyclopedic information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettydaisies (talk • contribs) 01:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is time we stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Empire AS ^Talk! 18:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Poston

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MC and bar arguably is multiple award of second-highest honour. Position as Monty's aide has attracted references in books. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete arguable if two awards of the MC is "multiple times" for the purposes of #1 of WP:SOLDIER, but as that is just an Essay, he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. He didn't seem to do anything notable unlike Herbert Wohlfarth nominated for deletion above. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick search turns up indications of sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Passes WP:SOLDIER #1 (which reminder "it's only an essay" is an Argument To Avoid). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there's SIGCOV add them in. WP:ONLYESSAY is perfectly valid because WP:SOLDIER is not a guideline, it is an Essay that lists categories presumed to have SIGCOV in multiple RS. If SIGCOV in multiple RS doesn't exist the person isn't notable even if they meet one of the categories. Mztourist (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough: I've added The Times obituary written by Montgomery himself Piecesofuk (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Canning

AfDs for this article:

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

Like the last two AFDs, he still fails WP:NPOL and the rest is just WP:BLP1E. There's no real in depth coverage and this is mostly just a giant puff piece leaning on a coatrack. (ie. While in office he proposed innovative right-wing policies, such as preventing tax rises by scrapping Essex County Council’s offices. which is hardly innovative in Government much less from conservatives ;)) GRINCHIDICAE🎄 14:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ impartial/could care less It took me about five minutes to write, I was drunk and high and I couldn't give a ~~toss~~ monkeys whether WP keeps it or not.Ebbing and flowey (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note GRINCHIDICAE🎄 has left the project. I will implement their feedback in accordance with their last wishes and remove While in office he proposed innovative right-wing policies, such as preventing tax rises by scrapping Essex County Council’s offices..Ebbing and flowey (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: It is perhaps borderline in terms of notability for a biographical article, but in my view there is possibly enough coverage in news sources and articles written by Canning to suggest he's had more general notability / news coverage than most other local councillors or former councillors in the UK. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles written by Canning don't help to make him notable. We require sources written about him, in the third person, by other people. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability comes from works created by other people, not from works created by the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local government districts are not a level of political office that guarantees an article under WP:NPOL. Of the ten footnotes here, five are purely local coverage of the time that's simply expected to routinely exist for all local councillors whether they clear our notability standards or not, and thus are not GNG-bringers; two just glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of not being about him, which does not help to make him notable; one is just a brief blurb verifying his initial election to council; and one is a piece written by him rather than about him. There's just one footnote here that's actually both substantively about him and from national media, and even that one is not about him doing anything significant enough to make him notable on those grounds per se. GNG, as always, is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number" — it tests the sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, not just whether n>2 or not. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too many articles are about local government; as per Bearcat, these don't give notability and are Run-of-the-Mill for local councillors. I don't anything particularly mature about this fellow in this media coverage. Not GNG, I do say. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Paradise

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. The consensus is to keep for now, but consider merging with other models into a combined article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander ALX400

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

Some mentions in a few news articles and enthusiast books but no significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. There is an upcoming book I found about ALX400 buses in London but that on its own won't establish notability. SK2242 (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~/merge~~ per WP:ATD offered in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander ALX500, another body in the same series.SC96 (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to "keep" only.SC96 (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons in parallel discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander ALX500. Lilporchy (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lilporchy and SC96: Are there at least 3 pieces of significant coverage from reliable sources to meet GNG? SK2242 (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a Merge discussion is being started on all ALX articles if the Afds end as keep. SK2242 (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander ALX500 that all variants should be merged, but that needs to be done on talkpage not AfD Jumpytoo Talk 21:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to merge per above. Sources have been found, addressing the nominators concerns. Thryduulf (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Optare Olympus

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

Some mentions/minor coverage in books but no significant coverage - fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced technical article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there at least 3 pieces of significant coverage from reliable independent sources to pass GNG? SK2242 (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of significant coverage and so it passes WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any evidence of significant coverage, neither in a BEFORE search or in the article. SK2242 (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can @Oaktree b: or @Andrew Davidson: provide at least 3 reliable sources that talk about the subject in significant detail to show notability? A paragraph in a book is not significant coverage. This same question goes for the other bus nominations they have commented on. SK2242 (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Comment If it's going to be an issue, could be merged under the main Optare article. Individual bus models or (locomotive models) have traditionally been kept here,I see no reason to change this now. It's certainly within scope of Category:Transport_stubs, itself a subcat of Project Transport, Project Engineering, under the Technology Portal. The Category Technology says: Scope: Most articles within Category:Technology and its sub-categories are within our scope. There are several other projects with similar scopes, which we hope to work closely with. It falls 4 subcategories under project technology, but it's within scope and in fact should be tagged as a Stub rather than nominated for deletion. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Oaktree b (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, could do with some more cites, put notable enough to pass WP:GNG, issues of Buses from the era would be a starting point. Lilporchy (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lilporchy. Meets the GNG and more sources will be available - the notability of 15 year old niche subjects cannot be adequately determined by 5 minutes on Google. Thryduulf (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Henry (basketball)

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

Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NBASKETBALL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It's a stub that has room to expand. Carter (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing does not actually add up to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He does have this substancial article written about him. Alvaldi (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun is not reliable per WP:THESUN.—Bagumba (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that while other sources are preferable The Sun can be considered reliable for sports reporting (although caution is needed). Carter (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we gave a pass to that one, GNG still requires multiple sources.—Bagumba (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple, independent reliable sources. Does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL either.—Bagumba (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Jonathan Sharp (musician); all of the nominated albums will be redirected there. This AfD has been sitting for an unusually long time and is now mostly moot. The move was suggested by one of the voters and endorsed by others; the move to Sharp's article was already done a week ago with further improvements being made there already. Further discussion has become unnecessary.. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 04:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Mind (band)

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

~~Another one of now-indeffed User:Soul Crusher's creations.~~ Created by IP in 2005, but Soul Crusher created all of the album pages. Sources are an interview and some unreliable sources, and I can't find anything better. doesn't seem to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Also bundling in the pages for the band's albums, as those will go if the band article does.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 07:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 07:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 07:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable band. At first I also thought this is just another of Soul Crusher's non-notable bands, but yeah, this is much older. Still not notable, no reliable sources are presented and I couldn't find one. The band had an article on plwiki as well, but there are no sources whatsoever. Non-notable band, and the albums can go as well (not just because they are created by SC, but because of them being non-notable). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I have a note on the talk page about converting this to be an article on Jonathan Sharp, which will cover both these projects (New Mind & Biotek) plus allow expansion on his other activities. Additionally, disagree about notability on the basis of #5 in the notability guidelines ("Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).") - his works have been released on both Zoth Ommog and Off Beat which are significant indie labels for electronic/industrial music. I frankly don't care about the album pages but I do think that Jonathan and his works and collaborations are worth noting. But, yes, it can use more sources - I added what I could find readily (Sonic Boom was an important pre-blog Web resource and Culture Shock was one of many print scene magazines from the 90s), but in general it is a difficult proposition to find sources for underground acts from pre-modern Web times; in that sense it is still a work in progress. -- t_kiehne (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - the band fails WP:NBAND, and the albums fail WP:NALBUM, and they all fail WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move the New Mind article to Jonathan Sharp (musician), which will require a "round robin move" due to clashing redirects, then Redirect all of the nominated albums to Sharp's article. In the vote above and also at Talk:New Mind (band), Tkiehne has argued that Sharp may have enough notability to qualify for his own article, which I find fairly persuasive. That article can include Sharp's various projects and albums under multiple names. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move and rewrite as above as Sharp's entire music history may well be notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment - The move has already been done, due to outcome of the discussion at Talk:New Mind (band). That probably should not have happened before this AfD was done, but the article under discussion is now called Jonathan Sharp (musician). That article may be viable if Tkiehne and others clean it up with a focus on Sharp's larger career. The albums listed in this AfD can be redirected to there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HousePriceCrash

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

N/C close in 2008 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House Price Crash and some of the same concerns about the sourcing remain in the "Media Activity" section. The founder is occasionally interviewed and mentions the company, but there is no in-depth coverage of the website. Even this 2017 piece in the Guardian isn't more than a passing mention. StarM 19:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blog from 10 years ago, no notability established since then, if any at the time. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Others

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

England

Camus (band)

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Can only find trivial mentions and one review in a blog. C F A 💬 20:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and England. C F A 💬 20:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Rowley (writer)

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

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

There are at least two sigcov reviews of his books on ProQuest. 1 for Beatles For Sale, 1 for All Together Now. That's not quite there but I can't do an in depth check now - however, it's not nothing. I will vote after I have done a better check. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does one of the ProQuest articles include a review from The Spectator? A review for All Together Now shows up in Google Search, but it's a dead link and not archived from what I can tell. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade Yes, that's one of them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: Is the other the review in Goldmine? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade Yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:03, 11 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]

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 [22], 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 19: / Line 19: @@
 == United Kingdom ==
 <!-- New AFD discussions should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BLAG Linux and GNU (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebs Akintade}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Avant-garde_Pictures}}

Revision as of 22:41, 6 January 2021

United Kingdom

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

England

Others

Northern Ireland

Others

Scotland

Others

Wales

Others