Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom

WP:AFD/UK

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

See also:

Scan for United Kingdom related AfDs

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

United Kingdom

Gareth Dennis

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

This article came up at ANI, due to an IP address making inappropriate edits, and on closer inspection I don't think that the subject is notable. The article asserts that he has lectured at a couple of academic institutions, but he doesn't appear to be currently employed at either of them, and that wouldn't constitute an WP:NPROF pass anyway. His dismissal from a railway engineering firm was covered in the national press, but WP:BLP1E. He has written a book, but the reviews I'm finding for that are written on activist websites, railway fan forums and the like - it's not an WP:NAUTHOR pass. That leaves us with the idea that he is notable because he is interviewed in the press from time to time about matters concerning railway transportation; I'm not persuaded that that constitutes notability for our purposes. He may become notable in the future, if his writing attracts significant critical attention, but to my mind this article is premature. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Politics, Engineering, Scotland, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week redirect to Peter Hendy#Network Rail, where his sacking is covered. Despite enjoying his work, I have to agree that at present Dennis doesn't quite have enough coverage (per WP:BLP1E) to merit a standalone article (although I personally don't think he's too far off). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem to pass author notability for "How Railways will fix the Future", this is the only sort of "critical review" I could find [1] and I'm not sure if that even counts as a RS. Getting fired isn't terribly notable. I don't see him passing academic notability either. I'm not sure what's left for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just to be clear, I think trains are great, and the subject's advocacy and passion are probably for the good. But being interviewed a lot, getting sacked for maybe not choosing his words carefully enough, and writing one book with apparently one review (in something called Counterfire, "a revolutionary socialist organisation committed to transforming our society from one based on the profit motive to one built on the needs of working people" [2]), aren't even close to notability material. It's worth pointing out that the subject himself has edited the article recently, so we can assume that any worthwhile sources are already present in the article. E Eng 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be fair, as far as I can tell, Dennis only made two edits in August, which amounted to a change of the nationality of his father, which in the timeline of this article doesn't seem very recent. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't implying there was anything wrong with his edits. My point was simply that you can count on the subject to have added to the article any missing significant sources about himself, if any existed. (Or he might have raised them on the talk page.) E Eng 16:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can assume that. If there was an article on me, I probably wouldn't edit it or its talk page point blank as far as possible. If there was something bad enough that I felt I did need to do something I would likely stick to the talk page etc but whatever I did, would still only edit in relation to these important issues. And no matter how much else I felt was missing I likely wouldn't do anything about it, not even posting sources on the talk page. I'm not sure if I'd worry too much about the nationality of my father myself, but it can be a big deal for some. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting the book is only being published this month so it could be a case of WP:TOOSOON as far as reviews go. For this reason, if it can't be kept, I would support a redirect for now per @Cakelot1:'s suggestion. Starklinson (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and suggestion: stories about him are front page news in UK national newspapers today, please can we wait a while to make a decision, there are many new refs to add and very likely more in the next days. John Cummings (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt if any newspaper, anywhere in the world has front-page, today, that isn't entirely One Story. In terms of update, itself, it doesn't seem to change the WP:BLP1E calculation (it being an update to the "Hendy event"). Is your impression that we are likely to get any stories about Gareth, that don't concern his firing/Hendy? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind when newspapers were being prepared for Wednesday morning in the UK, it's fairly likely all that there was to say about the US election, was something like "Americans vote in monumental election" so it's not particularly surprising they had a lot of room for other stuff on their front pages. I'm sure their Thursday papers and any evening or other late editions might be different. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point remains though that this is still BLP1E - it looks like he ended up getting sacked because a government minister complained to his boss about something he said in an interview; that (now former) government minister has apologised, and that apology is resulting in news coverage. We can (and do) cover those controversial events in the article about the politician (although it looks like that might need a bit of updating in light of today's coverage), but it doesn't follow that we need an article about the individual who lost his job. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peter Hendy#Network Rail: Per above... About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 13:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Dunn

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

This BLP has only one source and I haven't been able to find anything Signicant. The best thing I've found is [3] which isn't great Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and Theatre. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read both of the relevant Google hits, one of which says that his character was one of the "major villains" in Arrow, but he was only in season 1 (mostly in flashbacks) except for 1 episode in season 8. The other source says that he apparently stopped acting after his last Arrow appearance. Neither has significant coverage of the actor, and I don't see any reviews of his performances. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just to clafiy something here for potential closers, flashes backs are heavily used in Arrow in season 1 they are arguably more used then the modern day events. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lack WP:RS to meet WP:GNG Tesleemah (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Federico

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:BEFORE (voting) search only revealed automated databases (that list most semi-professional darts players) that don't meet WP:SIGCOV - mainly with limited biographical info like name, age, matches played - see [4], [5], [6] etc. No news or other coverage thus doesn't meet WP:SPORTCRIT per "if they have SIGCOV, i.e. multiple published, non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable (these have no evidence of editorial checking). Molecular Pilot 08:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bojong Kokosan

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

Entirely unsourced, WP:BEFORE search shows little to nothing, and the AfC is also unsourced but with more context. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Indonesia, and United Kingdom. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while it's very much stub-class at the moment, during my WP:BEFORE (voting) search I found this reference from the Indonesian Government Ministry of Education and Culture - [7] - that supports everything said in the article and more and is almost the most WP:RS source possible. As well as a news article from an Indonesian news website [8] and from a popular Indonesian online magazine about history [9] that's notable enough to have it's own id.wiki article [10]. Molecular Pilot 06:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also another Indonesian news website with very clear editorial team and oversight (see the bottom of the article and also about pages) thus throughly meeting WP:NEWSORG, With all these sources talking about it extensively with whole, really long articles, and they all seem reliable (especially then government website), I strongly feel that this article meets WP:GNG. Note that I've added the government source as a reference in the article now. Molecular Pilot 06:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to link this "other" website! Sorry! https://tirto.id/sejarah-pertempuran-bojong-kokosan-penyebab-kronologi-dan-dampak-giPK Molecular Pilot 07:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per MolecularPilot's work. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FNTSY (MJ Mytton-Sanneh)

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MJ Mytton-Sanneh was part of UK boy band New Bounce that placed third in Britain's Got Talent (series 5). Britain's Got Talent averaged 10.9 million viewers per episode on live TV; many lower-placing acts have Wikipedia pages, with Britain's Got Talent being their only source of notability. MJ Mytton-Sanneh has also been part of West End musicals such as Thriller Live (which toured the world) and has also featured on The X Factor. He absolutely is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. I acknowledge that in recent years there is not as much notability—but any form of notability is worth a Wikipedia page, as it’s meant to be timeless.

After creating this article, I will also create the article for New Bounce, as they are missing a Wikipedia page SRR111 (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Mental Health Association

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

Marked for notability concerns since December 2022. I could not find significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, China, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find anything for this organization. The sourcing used is primary, so I'm not sure we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian White (author)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. From what I can see, no secondary, non-self published sources exist — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United Kingdom. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hulme

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 10:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and United Kingdom. Hitro talk 10:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing much here towards WP:PROF; the single book has two coauthors and not much citation activity visible on GS. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as above - no evidence for meeting WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Created by an SPA, there is also no presence of the subject on Scopus, and the citations in the article are largely primary. Possibly draftify could be an option for the incubation of the article, just in case there may be the sources out there. ResonantDis_tortion 11:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lynch (rioter)

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

I don't believe this person meets WP:BIO notability standards and is has only received media coverage for WP:ONEEVENT. Orange sticker (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, Events, Politics, and Terrorism. Orange sticker (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom. There are hundreds of these people, this specific one is not unique. This isn't even one that is close to being notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

actually redirect to section mentioned below PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hi @PARAKANYAA technically you have !voted twice - please strike one.~~ Done. ResonantDis_tortion 11:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect. Per WP:ONEEVENT, as mentioned by Orange sticker: "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event, and the person's name should be redirected to it." There is already a section on Lynch in the larger article at 2024 United Kingdom riots#Peter Lynch, and the sources have little additional biographical detail that would be out of the scope of that article. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Orange sticker (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BLP1E to the above linked article - no need for a seperate article on the subject. ResonantDis_tortion 11:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect A section on that page is already dedicated to him. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not convinced that the section about this person in 2024 United Kingdom riots will stand the test of time, as the only remarkable thing about his conviction and sentencing is that he passed away while imprisoned. Orange sticker (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a classic example of one event. I won’t oppose a redirect. Bearian (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Nile Region from 1898 under Anglo-Egyptians Military Rule with Civil Colonial Natives Administrations

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

Blatant essay. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Egypt, and United Kingdom. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I think there is a valid topic here - “The administration of the Upper Nile Region under colonial rule” - and there are sources. I don’t think this is an essay. It just, well, a draft. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra and everyone else: For what it's worth, I'm actually okay with outcomes other than deletion. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: needs alot of copy editing especially for bold and capital letters which appears randomly through the text. Not to mention the lack of references and links to other articles. The article author might want to start by going though Wikipedia:Manual of Style, then submit the draft for approval. Do that for couple of articles before jumping to moving articles to the main space. But beyond that, great start and a very interesting topic. FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AccessArt

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

I stand by my original PROD reason, which was that it seems unlikely there will be enough coverage to meet WP:NORG.

The Guardian article cited is written by Briggs and seems to be more about her opinions on art than the organisation itself. All the other coverage I've been able to find such as this 2002 article also from the Guardian barely goes beyond mentioning the name.

Deprodded with the reason charity affects education and culture for millions of young people nationally, which is a valid CCS preventing A7, but WP:NONPROFIT are still required to receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, which I have not been able to find. There are some brief mentions in trade journals, but they rarely go beyond just a name check. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find scattered mentions of this charity [11], [12] and [13]. Trivial mentions, not enough to build an article. Barely much more found in the refs now used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: With an active fee-paying membership of 22,000 schools (together educating the majority of children in the UK), and with each school providing coverage of the charity's educational materials and each referring to the charity's guidelines when shaping their curriculums... coverage by the schools should be considered as significant, independent and reliable. ArtDataArt (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desserts (film)

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

Completely unreferenced article about a short film. As always, films are not inherently notable just for existing, and have to be reliably sourced as passing certain specific notability criteria to qualify for inclusion -- however, the only claim of notability even attempted here is that Ewan McGregor was in it, but films do not inherit notability from their cast members, so having a famous actor in it does not exempt a film from having to pass WP:GNG in and of itself.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived British media coverage from the 1990s can find better sourcing than I've been able to locate on the Google, but even Ewan McGregor can't magically exempt short films from having to have sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has a BEFORE been performed?? No. " His first short film, Desserts, won the Silver Bear at the 1999 Berlin Film Festival." (https://www.torinofilmfest.org/en/17-torino-film-festival/film/desserts/684/) Plus multiple results on GBooks. Unsourced articles need sources not deletion. Willing to improve this later. (https://www.sansebastianhorrorfestival.eus/1999/ing/desserts.htm http://film-directory.britishcouncil.org/desserts for verification) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, a BEFORE most certainly was performed.

Secondly, the source for any film award win has to be journalistic reportage about the award presentation in media, not film festival catalogues. An award has to itself be notable (i.e. pass WP:GNG) before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so the award has to be referenced to GNG-worthy media coverage in order to demonstrate that the award is notable enough to constitute a notability claim, and a film cannot be notable for winning an award that you have to source to promotional content on the self-published website of a film festival in lieu of proper media coverage about said award.

Thirdly, the sourcing for thing else about the film also has to be coverage about the film in media, not the self-published catalogues of film festivals or directory entries. Films always have to be shown to pass WP:GNG regardless of what notability claims are attempted, no notability claim is ever so "inherently" notable as to exempt a film from having to be referenced to GNG-worthy sourcing, and film festival catalogues and directory entries are not GNG-worthy sourcing. GNG requires journalistic coverage about the film in media, not indiscriminate-inclusion directory entries and directly affiliated promotional sources. Bearcat (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! So you performed a BEFORE but you failed to mention the short had WON a Silver Bear in your not-so-short rationale? (:D) Sure. You probably forgot that tiny detail. But I'll assume good faith. As for the rest, no. Coverage in books (see page, where one of the sources for the award is a BOOK: can you check it again -since you probably had seen it in your BEFORE?-) and any reliable source are OK for verification. The film has won a notable award at one the most prestigious film festivals in the history of cinema, it can therefore be considered notable. And that is just one reason to keep it. Also, self-published is generally not used with the meaning you seem to think it has; the links are to OFFICIAL websites of notable film festvals, they cannot be described as "self-published catalogues". I don't know what "sourcing for thing else" means. Anything? Sure. Again, not only "media" coverage counts. Just read the guideline. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it might be interesting to compare the reply to my !vote, by the nominator, with that comment by the same user, at another AfD (where they were in favour of retaining the page....) it's a top-level national award that nails inherent notability to the wall right on its face per WP:ANYBIO's "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times", which means it's inherently notable enough that it locks notability down even if the sourcing is inadequate. The only legitimate grounds for deleting a Gemini/Genie/CSA winner would be if sourceability were completely nonexistent (e.g. a person whose article falsely claimed a nomination or win that they didn't really have)} (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Cluer) Do different standards apply to BLPs of (Canadian) filmmakers? Sourced nominations/collective wins at certainly notable Canadian awards imply "inherent notability" (emphasis not mine) in certain cases but films winning extremely notable awards at international festivals, although sourced with various references, should not be considered notable? -despite W:NFILM stating they can be considered notable if they win a major award-. Food for thought. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, WP:BEFORE only requires me to scan the results of a search to determine whether there are reliable and WP:GNG-worthy sources available in the pool, and does not require me to manually investigate each link to determine whether there's a hidden potential notability claim — at the time of nomination, the article did not say that there were any awards involved, so it is not my responsibility to have discovered that. BEFORE only requires me to determine whether reliable or GNG-worthy sources are available to salvage the article with, and does not require me to do the salvaging myself.

Secondly, you know what else isn't GNG-worthy support for notability either? Ebooks self-published by their own writers through print-on-demand houses.

And there's no conflict between what I'm saying here and what I said at Sebastian Cluer, either: the difference hinges on reliable sourcing. Sebastian Cluer's Canadian Screen Award nominations and wins were properly sourced to WP:GNG-worthy media coverage that reported the CSA nominees and winners as news, which means I applied the same standards to both topics and said absolutely nothing different there than here. The argument there wasn't that he was exempted from having to have any sourcing because of the award claims, the argument was about whether or not we needed to also find biographical sourcing about him in addition to the properly sourced award claims, which isn't the same thing at all.

By far the majority of winners of the Silver Bear for Best Short Film do not have Wikipedia articles, as can be seen by simply looking at that article. It's not that they can't have articles, obviously, but properly sourcing articles about short films is frequently harder than properly sourcing articles about feature films is, and the films are not exempted from having to be properly sourced just because there's an award involved — even a film with an award-related notability claim still has to be properly sourced. So most of the films in that list don't have articles, because it's a lot harder to find GNG-worthy sourcing that properly supports articles about short films. And again, that's not different from Sebastian Cluer at all, as his award-related notability claim was properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the one who wrote "The only legitimate grounds for deleting a Gemini/Genie/CSA winner would be if sourceability were completely nonexistent (e.g. a person whose article falsely claimed a nomination or win that they didn't really have)." but the Silver Bear win for the present short is now sourced with at least 4 reliable sources. Properly sourced. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not substantially edit your comments once they have been replied to. It can be at best very confusing. Please kindly remove the added text and insert it below if you wish, per Wikipedia:REDACTED. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International

AfDs for this article:

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

Extremely minor left-wing group, no notability established. Attempts to find RS come up blank, article is nearly 100% WP:SELFPUB violation. No likelihood for improvement.

Was discussed at an AFD around 13 years ago and adjourned as Keep, vague reason seems to be "sources exist" but given there's been no improvement in 13 years I don't think that defence really stands, nor can be established at this time. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As original author 20 years ago I agree with the deletion. Secretlondon (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13 years or 13 weeks, we're not on a deadline. The previous discussion did not have a "vague reason", there were two explicit sources cited: Marilyn Vogt-Downey's (1993) "The USSR 1987-1991: Marxist Perspectives" (ISBN 9780391037724), which has 7-8 pages on the organisation, and a 1994 South African law report discussing a case against the Electoral Commission involving the WIRFI. I see mention in John Kelly's (2018) "Contemporary Trotskyism: Parties, Sects and Social Movements in Britain" ISBN 9781317368946 and further discussions of the South African case in other sources (eg South African Labour News, p.5), frequently in the context of constitutional law. While not in principle opposed to a merge, as far as I can see there's not a natural target given the number of splits, so I'm leaning towards a weak keep, but happy to reconsider. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn those two sources were explicitly mentioned but it's never demonstrated they provide the sustained discussion necessary to meet GNG. For example that first source doesn't actually state it has 7-8 pages on the organisation, instead it states it documents 'comments presented by a few participants in the... conference organised by the Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International'. So is it about the group? Were all the participants members of this group? Is it just a long list of quotes from a conference? Answer is we don't know. And the same goes for the presenting of a book on South African court cases, where just naming the book doesn't actually detail what depth it goes into about the group (if really at all). That's why I regarded is as a vague "sources exist" because it's not actually demonstrated whether those sources are indeed suitable.

If anything I think this really works as a good example of one of my biggest pet peeves with Wikipedia which when editors list sources in AfDs as an argument for Keep but they then don't add them to the article. If editors add them then it actually demonstrates they're good sources and renders the AfD moot (because the article has now been improved and it meets GNG), but simply mentioning sources in the AfD and doing nothing with them not only fails to improve the article but rather unfairly implies they're good sources without having used them and adds effectively "phantom weight" to the argument for Keep.

As to "we're not on a deadline", then I'd argue that also applies as an argument for delete given that if in the future sources are actually demonstrated to support the existence of the article it can just be recreated. However if after 13 years there has been no discernible improvement of the article, including a failure to utilise sources listed at said previous AfD, then it does suggest that there is no realistic prospect of improvement and therefore should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rambling Rambler, I'll only respond to the philosophical comments by emphasising WP:NEXIST which reflects community consensus. I elaborated on the references referred to in the previous AfD explicitly indicating what they were - which was lacking in your nomination statement as I disagreed with your summary of the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There appears to be some significant coverage of the group in independent sources; I support keeping the article and expanding on said coverage, specifically in regard to the South Africa case. Yue🌙 21:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Attractions

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

No evidence of notability separate from Elvis Costello. Most information of importance already covered in Costello's page DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elvis Costello. The key thing here is the album they released on their own, which despite the nominator's statement, isn't even mentioned in the Costello article. --Michig (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an album of any particular note. I'm not opposed to a merge but I don't think the Attractions doing an album without Costello is noteworthy for his page DeputyBeagle (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elvis Costello. Note that not all of the article has to be merged, and most of the text in this article is merely a wordier version of history already discussed at Costello's article. A few band-specific events can be squeezed in over there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did contribute some a bit to the article a few years ago, including adding the NF image and some sources. The only basis I'd argue the inclusion of notability would be the fact that the Attractions have been called one of the best backing bands in music history, but as the others have said, about 90% of their career is tied to EC. With that being said I think it would be fine to merge. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . This band were the backing group to a leading New Wave singer, which surely makes them notable. YTKJ (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if I understand the logic there. Nobody's denying Costello is notable, but they haven't done enough notable on their own to justify their own article. They need to have independent notability.

In the same way as how WP:BANDMEMBER doesn't give every member of a notable band its own, a backing band needs to be able to stand on their WP:BAND criteria seperately from Costello if they have their own article DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point, User: DeputyBeagle. Having looked at WP: BANDMEMBER and read the first item on the list of notability criteria under WP:BAND, I can say that I would not be opposed to a merge with or redirect to Elvis Costello. Just so long as the outcome of this discussion is not deletion - the band were too closely linked with Costello for that. YTKJ (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources show this is clearly notable!!! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D- Aside:@Liz, hello, if the undue bold mentioned in a recent message concerned this page, I am afraid it was not my deed but an unvolontary consequence of an edit by@YTKJ (fixed) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable, and also a very reasonable way of organizing content surrounding Costello. yes, there are other ways it could be done, but this way makes sense.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Milowent. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography

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

The discography and chart history of a nation's Eurovision entries has no relevance to the country's participation in Eurovision. Beyond the songs being Eurovision entries (which are already covered in more detail at Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest), how they charted in their country or elsewhere does not have an impact on the nation's participation history nor its success/placement at the contest. Grk1011 (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional nominated article for the same reasons:

The basis of this deletion discussion is based in the following policies/guidelines:

WP:GNG: The list lacks significant coverage in sources, with most supplied references being the chart positions themselves, with no added context. The article does not establish what grouping all of these songs and chart positions together is trying to prove, show, or discuss.
WP:NOTSTATS: The list of one specific statistic about these Eurovision songs only shows how they fared on one specific country's music charts (not even at the contest itself); it lacks context or explanation.
WP:LISTCRIT: The list is a synthesis of available information, compiled nowhere else in this level of detail other than on Wikipedia, for which the membership criteria remain somewhat unclear. The point of the article is just to identify a song's placing? To compare? Why only domestic charts? Why do other articles list the album they were on too? What text could be added to provide context without becoming WP:OR? How is this a "discography"?

Grk1011 (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Television, Lists, Europe, Ireland, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information contained is relevant to the UK charts more so than the Eurovision itself, which is highly notable. It is also a useful guide to how successful the songs were in the real world. The information is well sourced, so I see no reason to delete. The UK article has been in existence for 13 years and receives regular edits, so obviously has a lot of interest. The nominator hasn't given any policy reasons for deletion other than he/she doesn't like it, it seems.Tuzapicabit (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the nominator's rationale but, as noted above, it doesn't appear to be based on a specific policy. Not one I'm familiar with at any rate. To my mind, the main applicable policy is WP:NLIST. Which would expect the list subject/members to be discussed as a group. And several sources, including those I found/added in my own BEFORE, appear to discuss the topic (performance of Irish Eurovision entries in the Irish singles chart) as a subject. And discuss the list members as a group. As expected by NLIST(?) Guliolopez (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guliolopez:, @Tuzapicabit: I've now elaborated to identify some specific policies. Grk1011 (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guliolopez: @Tuzapicabit: Are you able to provide updated feedback based on the policies now added? You asked for this, so I want to make sure you've seen it and had a chance to respond/refute. Thanks. Grk1011 (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Given the policies quoted here, particularly WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRIT, I believe there is a strong case to be made that these lists do not qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

England

Jeff Radwell

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources are about his company, Canouflet, with few pass mentioned in some journals. Ibjaja055 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, China, Hong Kong, England, California, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Kabongolo

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are primary sources that do not show notability. Only has 9 appearances at 5th tier of English soccer. Demt1298 (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, France, and England. Demt1298 (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thafnine

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

No evidence of meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Most sources are primary or YouTube videos. A WP:BEFORE search finds one article [14] which does not contain significant coverage of the subject. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hykeham

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

This article began as a redirect to provide a destination for a railway station that was otherwise red-linked, but is actually in North Hykeham. The article attempts to link North Hykeham and South Hykeham ~~(a non-notable area of a couple of country lanes) into one entity that doesn't really exist,~~ merely because they share part of a name and are adjacent. There is really no need for this article, which is basically nothing more than a disambiguation ~~between one notable article (North Hykeham) and an article that doesn't exist about the non-notable South Hykeham Elemimele~~ (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologise, South Hykeham does exist. I still think we don't need Hykeham as it's really a dab masquerading as an article, so I'll let this AfD stand. Elemimele (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this seems useful as a WP:BROADCONCEPT page covering the villages of North and South Hykeham as well as the railway station that links them together. Clearly there needs to be something at this page, and what's there now seems as good as any, although it could do with a few references. Alternatively just have a disambiguation page, but we shouldn't delete. — Amakuru (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to say: if you check the map you'll find that Hykeham station is at the North end of North Hykeham, not particularly close to South Hykeham. The station actually serves various non-Hykeham electoral wards of Lincoln, and is closer to them than it is to the village of South Hykeham. North Hykeham is contiguous with suburbs of Lincoln, but distinct from South Hykeham. Here's a map that sums it up: [15]. I'd argue that we don't need a dab page when there are only two entries to disambiguate; hat-notes are more appropriate. Elemimele (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but convert to a dab page. PamD 16:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... as I've just done. PamD 16:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as DAB per above. Dank Jae 23:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since there are now three targets, it's valid as a dab. I am happy for this AfD to be closed as per Pam without waiting further, if appropriate. Elemimele (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hykeham Memorial

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

Hykeham Memorial is not a place, certainly not a "suburb". It is a ward for elections to North Hykeham Town Council. There is nothing more to say about it, although some demographic statistics exist. It is not notable. (The one mildly interesting thing about it might have been an explanation of its name, as the North Hykeham Memorial Hall is within the ward and presumably gave it the name, but this has not been included.Perhaps the mentions of the Memorial Hall and park in the North Hykeham article could be enhanced with a "(which gives its name to Memorial ward)", but that's all that's needed.)

I note that North Hykeham#Governance does not mention the individual wards, and suggest that a list of wards there would be more appropriate than this article and others, for wards which have no existence except as lines on a map to define, for now, the electorate for lowest-level local elections. Hykeham Memorial is not notable, and Wikipedia does not need this article. PamD 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. PamD 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while we're at it, what's with Hykeham, an utterly pointless "article" that began as an attempt to avoid a railway station from being a red-link, and now attempts to join the substantial urban area of North Hykeham with a couple of country lanes on a map that are south of it and identified as South Hykeham, but really have nothing much in common apart from being adjacent. The railway station that engendered Hykeham is nowhere near South Hykeham and should better have been redirected to North Hykeham. Elemimele (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to the residents of South Hykeham, which does indeed exist. I have nominated Hykeham for AfD as an unnecessary dab with only two targets, unhelpful to readers. As for Hykeham Memorial, I personally see no value in articles covering the demographics of this low level of electoral region, but I defer to those who enjoy such things. Elemimele (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have no need for articles about wards of parishes and it is not a good use of anybody's time to be creating them. Rcsprinter123 (orate) 22:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic & General

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

All refs fail WP:SIRS, so fails WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Can I ask what the reason for this is? I'm happy to fix any issues

Thanks Ecwdgbt (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for reason given in nomination. The lack of independent sourcing makes the whole thing read like a press release. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi

Please could you clarify what you mean by 'lack of independent sourcing'. The majority of the citations are from independent sources including Sky News, The Independent and The Financial Times. Certain points have been substantiated via the company's homepage and their annual report but this has also been done on HomeServe, Legal & General and Admiral Group.

This is not supposed to act as a press release or as a marketing tool but appreciate your point. Would it benefit from adding in any new sections?

Thanks in advance for your feedback! Ecwdgbt (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at the article in the independent, for example - the many, many external links in the article are via Linkby which indicates that Domestic and General are paying for them. Which is why there's so many external links - you wouldn't normally see that many in a newspaper article. It's an advertorial, not independent coverage. -- D'n'B-t -- 20:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A prior discussion from 2018-9, touching on COI in the instance at the time but also on notability, can be read here. AllyD (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: This is an odd one: a firm over 100 years old, whose products are used by 1/3 of UK households according to a 2019 Bloomberg item("Abu Dhabi Fund to Buy 30% of Domestic & General Group"), previously a plc but taken private then changing hands several times. But the problem is that despite their name recognition and near-ubiquity in domestic appliance warranty, there's not a lot of coverage outside announcements of the firm changing hands, which falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am close to saying "But it's notable!" but unless better coverage can be found, would have to say it falls short on WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback!

Here are three topics aside from the firm taking hands that have led to coverage that I would argue isn't trivial.

Offices

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/domestic--general-hopes-create-5084777

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/domestic-general-flexible-working-london-hq-revamp-wfh-b942634.html

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/big-nottingham-employer-domestic-general-7422086

Partnerships

https://ertonline.co.uk/news/dg-agrees-five-year-aftercare-deal-with-marks-electrical/

https://ertonline.co.uk/news/panasonic-and-dg-sign-a-six-year-deal/

https://ertonline.co.uk/news/dg-agrees-three-year-deal-with-lg/

https://ertonline.co.uk/news/hughes-partners-with-domestic-and-general/

https://retailtimes.co.uk/domestic-general-extends-deal-with-john-lewis/

Acquisitions

https://www.cityam.com/american-adventure-continues-for-domestic-general-as-it-makes-second-acquisition/

https://www.postonline.co.uk/news/7955324/dg-aims-to-create-uber-like-claims-experience

https://www.warrantyweek.com/archive/ww20230629.html

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-wire-news-releases-pmn/domestic-general-group-to-acquire-after-inc

In addition to this, the CEO Matthew Crummack has garnered lots of coverage over the years (see below):

https://www.aston.ac.uk/latest-news/former-gocompare-ceo-donates-major-sum-create-opportunities-students-need

https://newsnreleases.com/2021/08/04/matthew-crummack-joins-domestic-general-as-ceo/

https://www.aston.ac.uk/about/governance-management/matthew-crummack

https://www.postonline.co.uk/personal/7955323/big-interview-matthew-crummack-domestic-general

https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/16007578

Let me know what you think or if the article would benefit from any new sections to showcase its notability?

Thank you! Ecwdgbt (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the weight to be placed on items about offices, partnerships and acquisitions, see the Standard notices points under WP:CORPTRIV. The City AM piece is bylined, but is ultimately a summary of announcement PR quotes. Coverage about the present CEO is relative to that person more than the company. You ask about what can "showcase" notability; in a way that is indicative of the problem of an article contributed by an editor with connection to the company at present. What is lacking is the longer perspective: substantial coverage about the firm's history. AllyD (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Whatley

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After a quick search, I was unable to find any sources that had any WP:SIGCOV, although I did find a couple brief mentions. Also, article has no citations. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Carroll

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as only mentions are in automated databases with name, age, games won/lost i.e. [16] and [17]. There's a single article with his name [18] that literally just says "A team won this award. The members where... [others names] and [his name]". This is a passing mention and WP:NINI from the award. Thus, no WP:SIGCOV meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT or WP:GNG. MolecularPilot 09:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding that the "news" article is a WP:PRSOURCE and can't prove notability. also this "award" (if you can call it that) was only between 13 non professional teams with no coverage outside of WP:PRSOURCEs from the bar chain running it. Molecular Pilot 09:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Widdows

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than the types of sources like the one cited in the article, nothing comes up to establish notability. Procyon117 (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Landers (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy's Records

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

Fails NCORP, notability concerns for over a decade, no references easily found on internet search Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was for some time the biggest independent record shop chain in the UK, a £30 million business with at one time 36 branches, and winning several industry awards. Coverage includes 'A love letter to Andy's Records where 90s kids in Cambridge spent far too much money', 'Andy's Records shops to close' and the British Newspaper Archive has several more articles about the company: 'Top Award for Andy's Records', Andy's Records Set to Break Into Brid', 'A Fourth Major Award For Andy's Records', 'Just for the Record, the Rest Is History: From Humble Market Stall to £30m Business, Andy's Is 30', 'Third retailing award for Andy's Records'. --Michig (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found by @Michig, to which I would add that Graham Jones, Whatever Happened to Record Stores (2009) at 285 includes at least a paragraph on the founding of the article subject (but I'm not logged in to archive.org, and can't check if the text runs over onto other pages). Oblivy (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Happy to withdraw following Michig's findings. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the sources provided by Michig and believe the article should be kept. Since the nominator has also withdrawn, it’s clear the article will remain. Baqi:) (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FNTSY (MJ Mytton-Sanneh)

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MJ Mytton-Sanneh was part of UK boy band New Bounce that placed third in Britain's Got Talent (series 5). Britain's Got Talent averaged 10.9 million viewers per episode on live TV; many lower-placing acts have Wikipedia pages, with Britain's Got Talent being their only source of notability. MJ Mytton-Sanneh has also been part of West End musicals such as Thriller Live (which toured the world) and has also featured on The X Factor. He absolutely is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. I acknowledge that in recent years there is not as much notability—but any form of notability is worth a Wikipedia page, as it’s meant to be timeless.

After creating this article, I will also create the article for New Bounce, as they are missing a Wikipedia page SRR111 (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamini Yacht Club

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

My first thoughts as a yachtsman were "Is there a yacht club on Hydra at all? It's a small island. ... And if there is, why isn't the club in Hydra port, the main port? Which by itself isn't big. ... And if the club was established in 1956, why don't I remember Axel Jensen or Leonard Cohen mentioning it?"

Kamini is a picturesque village at 37°20′52″N 23°27′26″E / 37.3479°N 23.4571°E / 37.3479; 23.4571,^[1] about 1 kilometre (0.62 miles) west of Hydra port. Judging by photos, the small fishing harbour has only room for 25-30 boats in the 3–10 metres (9.8–32.8 ft) range. With a max. depth of c. 2 metres (6.6 ft)^[2] the harbour would offer mooring to only the smallest visiting yachts. Which in reality I don't think it does.

Let's look at the sources. There are zero Gbook sources that mention Kamini Yacht Club. For a club that was founded in 1956, and has "secondary clubhouses in London, England and Cornwall, England for overseas members", that is inconceivable. ("Secondary clubhouse in Cornwall", yeah, right!) The article was created in August 2009. Doing a time-restricted Google search for web sources dated before 1 January 2009, there are zero hits. All other later hits are mere regurgitations of the article. (On a side note, the burgee looks like something from a kids' beach party, and IP 86.163.152.57 was about right when the reduced the stub to saying "The Kamini Yacht Club is not a yacht club." (diff).)

This article looks like it deserves to be moved to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Kamini Yacht Club, and with an age of 15 years, 2 months and 18 days also get an entry at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia#Extant for 10+ years.

References

^ "Hydra Villages". Greekacom. 19 July 2008. Retrieved 2 November 2024.
^ "Apanemi Mansion hydra, Rooms to Let in Hydra". Αρχοντικό Apanemi hydra, Ενοικιαζόμενα Δωμάτια στην Ύδρα. Retrieved 2 November 2024.

P.S. Consider joining the November 2024 backlog drive at WP:URA and find gems like this. Sam Sailor 10:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Greece, and England. Sam Sailor 10:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – even if not a hoax, this club would not meet WP:GNG. A nearly 70 year old international "organization" should have some searchable presence. This does not.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 13:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, obviously. Good work by the nominator. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete has sources like [19] but not notable since these are just mentions. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 05:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does not have sources. The "source" is from 2019. There are plenty of post-2009 non-RS that mention the Yacht Club. Sam Sailor 12:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that there are sources. Not RS Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 14:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hydra (island). The target page on Hydra now includes a mention of Kamini Yacht Club, citing sources including this 2024 article in the Express (Online/London) and this 2012 article in The Press in New Zealand. These are just mentions, so they don't help establish notability for the yacht club itself per WP:ORG or WP:GNG. There actually are other writers who mention Kamini Yacht Club, such as American ex-diplomat Don Feeney in his self-published memoir and it is also mentioned on this real estate website. Not a complete hoax, but likely includes original research which is unverifiable, and in any case there is not enough in-depth coverage to warrant a standalone Wikipedia article. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible the Kamini Yacht Club is actually more like a restaurant/clubhouse rather than an actual yacht club; the article in The Press mentions it in a paragraph about alleyways leading away from the actual port. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In regards to "The target page on Hydra (island) now includes a mention of Kamini Yacht Club": A mention of Kamini Yacht Club on Hydra (island) is nothing new. Hydra (island) has had a mention of Kamini Yacht Club since 2009 (diff) added by the creator of Kamini Yacht Club. That is standard modus operandi for validating a hoax and give the hoax incoming links, avoiding WP:O.
I am concerned about the addition today to Hydra (island) of the sentence
A popular yachting destination, Hydra is home to the Kamini Yacht Club, which welcomes tourists and sailors.
as a statement of fact in Special:Diff/1255128149. It sounds more like paraphrasing a tourist guide than the formal WP:TONE expected in an encyclopædia. And unsurprisingly, the blurb is supported by two poor citations via ProQuest. One of them, the only one with a byline, is easy to find online:
Wright, Emily (23 June 2024). "The beautiful underrated European island that is car-free and very walkable". Express.co.uk. Retrieved 3 November 2024.
The only question one needs to ask oneself here is "Is Daily Express a RS?" And the answer is no, WP:DAILYEXPRESS: "The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail. It is considered generally unreliable."
The other citation via Proquest does not include a byline, but the title "FELINE FIEFDOM" does not give me much hope that it is a quality source regarding Hydra.
Both "sources" are post-2009. There is plenty of churnalism out there that mentions the Club. None before 2009, however, when the Kamini Yacht Club article was created. I will remove the addition made in Special:Diff/1255128149.
The book by Don Feeney from 2014:
Feeney, D. (2014). Gathering No Moss: Memoir of a Reluctant World Traveler. iUniverse. p. 350. ISBN 978-1-4917-3488-9. Retrieved 3 November 2024.
is WP:SPS published by IUniverse, a notoriously unreliable publisher with no editorial oversight. We have had IUniveerse in edit filter 894 for years. Add a citation with publisher=IUniverse to an article an it will trigger MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-selfpublished in bright red. But it is quite amusing that Feeney writes as a statement of fact, "The Kamini Yacht Club welcomes ships from around the globe." Those "ships" would need to have a draught of less than 2 metres.
In regards to "It's possible the Kamini Yacht Club is actually more like a restaurant/clubhouse rather than an actual yacht club": That is speculative nonsense. The fact alone that Kamini Yacht Club has no web presence at all should make any Wikipedian concerned about an article like this. The litmus test here is still to find high-quality, reliable sources that pre-dates our article from 2009. And there are none. Sam Sailor 12:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No major objection from me: Just trying to make the point that it seems "something" called Kamini Yacht Club does appear to exist, even if it falls short of a yacht club in the classical sense. Even the lack of a web presence doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't or didn't exist. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !vote to delete. While I'm not persuaded that an establishment called the Kamini Yacht Club never existed, in this case the source analysis by Sam Sailor is on the money because it seems quite likely that the Kamini Yacht Club no longer exists and is now known as Omilos Restaurant & Bar. (This is not something I would add to the encyclopedia, just outside research; more than the fact that a restaurant or yacht club didn't have a organisational web presence, it was the fact that it's not mentioned anywhere on TripAdvisor or Instagram, etc., that seemed suspect.) Regardless, the detail included in the current article is unverifiable and suspect (and should be removed) – one wonders if was actually the artist "commissioned" to design the burgee who might have been motivated to promote their website (I have already removed the embedded external link in the body text). @Sam Sailor: Good sleuthing and skepticism; it's just that your WP:HOAX assertion/theorisation/speculation that seemed a bit OTT (and I'm saying this as a hoax-hunting fan who has pleaded "hoax" in several AfDs myself; it often turns out that even if the article is "partly" a hoax and entirely deserving of deletion, it doesn't mean that there aren't facts in the mix that turn out to be true, which is why some bad articles manage to persist for so long). All in all, this is excellent work in helping to put a stop to perpetuating the propagation of incorrect information, which my edit on the target page would have done and which was rightly removed. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In regards to "... in this case the source analysis by Sam Sailor is on the money because it seems quite likely that the Kamini Yacht Club no longer exists and is now known as Omilos Restaurant & Bar":
No, it does not "seem quite likely". Not even remotely likely. Both the editor and the Californian tourist are wrong.
1. First, it's a tourist's photo caption from Flickr. No serious Wikipedian would assume the tourist got it right. And he did not.
2. Secondly, his caption reads, quote: "The Hydra Yacht Club at right (now the Omilos Restaurant & Bar)". How the editor above twists that caption into "The Kamini Yacht Club no longer exists and is now known as Omilos Restaurant & Bar" is a mystery.
3. Compare the Flickr photo of Hydra port with the photo from Kamini on this page that I linked to in the nomination. Kamini and Hydra port are two different locations, as I also mention in the nomination, and distinctively different from each other.
4. The Californian tourist is partly right: The building on the photo today houses a restaurant called Omilos.
5. Anybody who visited Hydra in the 1960s, 70s or 80s, or who has a remote interest in the island's modern history, or who simply cares to open the link will know that the building used to house the legendary club Lagoudera (Greek: Λαγουδέρα). The Studio 54 of Hydra.
6. Prior to Lagoudera opening in 1959, the building was used as a repair shop by the local fishermen. G*d knows where the tourist gets the "Hydra Yacht Club" from. I can't find any sources that confirms that it existed either.
Sam Sailor 08:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is awesome. @Stephenbharrison Any interest in covering a possible hoax on a massive scale? Could the effort of an artist to promote his website have really convinced diplomats, travel writers, real estate agents, etc., that an entire yacht club existed where there was none? Cielquiparle (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for flagging, @Cielquiparle. I'm pretty busy at the moment writing a case study about Wikipedia and AI for Balsillie School of International Affairs, but I will look into this yacht club story just because I find it personally interesting. Stephenbharrison (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam Sailor The auto-translation of the Studio 54 article suggest there was a "Marine Club of Hydra" which owned the building and leased it to the proprietor of Lagoudera...and there's a photograph of a sign on the building that says "Lagoudera Marine Club" too. (That's neither here nor there but suggests the half-truth that the "yacht club" claim might have been based on / inspired by.) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also...isn't it possible that:
Another establishment (e.g. "Kamini Yacht Club" or other) leased the building after Lagoudera in the 1980s...?

FYI – In some places it's actually quite commonplace to use names that don't correspond to specific locations – e.g., in London, Charing Cross Hospital is not in Charing Cross. So it's not unthinkable that a club or restaurant could have a name that didn't correspond to its exact location.

(On that note, I read "Hydra Yacht Club" to possibly mean "a yacht club" in Hydra, not necessarily its name. Regardless, agreed that these are not reliable sources... In any case I am more intrigued by your "hoax on a massive scale" thesis now...but would really like to see what an actual investigation turns up.)

Cielquiparle (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, if anything the image looks like a decoration of an inflatable pool or something that a random guy took a photo of. I also encountered some suspicious articles in the drive, so I guess I'm forced to PROD at least one of them at this rate. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete “even if not a hoax, this club would not meet WP:GNG. A nearly 70 year old international "organization" should have some searchable presence. This does not.--User:Loriendrew.” So badly fails WP:V. Bearian (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davy Richardson

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxfordshire Historic Churches Trust

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

Could not find third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. Of the 2 sources, first one is its own website, the other is dead. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, and England. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – added information and references for notability. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Piene

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

This article was created by and most contributions are from single-purpose accounts. One of these is clearly the artist herself; I wonder if the others have conflicts of interest. One of them (Harajuku650) dropped the problem tags, though perhaps they felt they had addressed the flagged issues? It still sounds less than neutral. This article was tagged for notability issues, and I'm still unclear on whether it demonstrates notability. One editor also suggested it might be easier to delete and start from scratch than rewrite to eliminate the POV content. -- Beland (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: The Getty ULAN has a biography and list of exhibits [20], this would seem to meet artist notability. The works reviewed (discussed near the end of the article) also show critical notice, which is what's needed for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, England, United States of America, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article is a mess. I started cleaning up the embedded links, changing them into inline citations. Most are garbage. I can't decide whether to skip the clean-up and just do a source analysis. Leaning towards rewriting this completely. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Her work has been shown in major institutions, some having acquired pieces for their collections; coverage exists and some is on the page, so that, although the page needs cleanup, an article about her may be retained imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article re-written to Wikipedia standards. This is a notable artist. Removed cruft and weird sourcing. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved since initial nomination. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable artist, per public collections Hermann Heilner Giebenrath (talk) 09:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian White (author)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. From what I can see, no secondary, non-self published sources exist — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United Kingdom. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hulme

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 10:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and United Kingdom. Hitro talk 10:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing much here towards WP:PROF; the single book has two coauthors and not much citation activity visible on GS. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as above - no evidence for meeting WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Created by an SPA, there is also no presence of the subject on Scopus, and the citations in the article are largely primary. Possibly draftify could be an option for the incubation of the article, just in case there may be the sources out there. ResonantDis_tortion 11:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macintyre Art Advisory

AfDs for this article:

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

Created by a single edit editor. Last AfD was withdrawn for technical reasons for being nominated by a sock. This fails WP:ORG and GNG and has been marked for notability concerns for 9 years. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, and England. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find coverage of this organization. This is about all I can pull up [21], I don't think that's enough. The one source in the article now isn't enough either. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Having one source is as good as original research, which is not what we do. I don’t see how organizing a single exhibit is notable. Bearian (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AccessArt

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

I stand by my original PROD reason, which was that it seems unlikely there will be enough coverage to meet WP:NORG.

The Guardian article cited is written by Briggs and seems to be more about her opinions on art than the organisation itself. All the other coverage I've been able to find such as this 2002 article also from the Guardian barely goes beyond mentioning the name.

Deprodded with the reason charity affects education and culture for millions of young people nationally, which is a valid CCS preventing A7, but WP:NONPROFIT are still required to receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, which I have not been able to find. There are some brief mentions in trade journals, but they rarely go beyond just a name check. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find scattered mentions of this charity [22], [23] and [24]. Trivial mentions, not enough to build an article. Barely much more found in the refs now used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: With an active fee-paying membership of 22,000 schools (together educating the majority of children in the UK), and with each school providing coverage of the charity's educational materials and each referring to the charity's guidelines when shaping their curriculums... coverage by the schools should be considered as significant, independent and reliable. ArtDataArt (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Spedding

AfDs for this article:

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. A search for sources seems to yield namesakes and not this darts player. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commotion Ltd v Rutty

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

Failed a PROD per User:A._B.'s prerogative, but as far as I can find, there are still no reliable sources that talk about this case that aren't just restating the facts of the case, and while I'm no lawyer or otherwise have expertise in the matter, those sources look to be mostly regurgitating anything it can get its hands onto rather that "this case and that case are important for xyz reason". No newspapers that I can find reported on the case at the time or since. Also as an aside, the creator of the page for....some reason, decided to have a very odd and irrelevant image for the infobox, but that's fixable in the case that I've overlooked sources that establish this case's nobility. Akaibu (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Akaibu (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google Scholar lists 40+ references to this decision; it set an important precedent apparently. The article does not discuss its importance. I agree that's an odd image. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added several refs to the article. Google Books shows this case is cited by a number of books. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a too-long quote. Can I snip it down? Bearian (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC) I cut down on the extraneous matters in the two long quote. I’d love for someone to add in more cases and books that cited this case. Bearian (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ario Nahavandi

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

I'm not seeing third party SIGCOV, probably not enough here for WP:NBIO. KH-1 (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Iran, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you are well, I have added more references such as (Magazine, News and more refs) to make sure each statements are supported by mentioned references. Could you please let me know if this could help to not be nominated for deletion? any feadbacks or help in case if there are still some issue with this article would be appreciated, many thanks xx Lanak20 (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links to three sources that discuss him in detail? -KH-1 (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes here are the some sources that dicuss him in the details:

1 ) https://www.nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/awards-2024/nominations/ario-nahavandi/

2) https://www.magcloud.com/browse/issue/1933514 ( Moscow tonight / Party issue/ February vol2/ page 34,35,36,37 )

3) https://www.bbc.com/persian/articles/cm5er1zggp0o

some extra just in case:

4) https://www.mashreghnews.ir/news/1652987/%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AE%D8%B1-%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B4%DA%A9-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA-%D8%A2%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%87-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B4-%D8%AC%D9%86%DA%AF%DB%8C-%D9%BE%D8%AE%D8%AA-%D9%88-%D9%BE%D8%B2-%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%AE%DB%8C-%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C

5)

https://roozaneh.net/art-culture/biography/%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%AF%DA%AF%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%87-%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AE%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%88%DB%8C/

Lanak20 (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional profile, probably user submitted.
Can't access the full publication, unclear what coverage it provides of the subject
About a protest song, doesn't specifically mention the subject as far as I can tell English
What appears to be a film review, doesn't mention the subject as far as I can tell English
What appears to be a promotional bio of a different individual - English

Still not seeing anything that would demonstrate SIGCOV.-KH-1 (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I appreciate your feadback however:

It is not a promotional website, there is not a part of website stating user can create a profile or bio. the National Diversity Awards website is not a promotional platform where individuals can create their own profiles. It is a curated, third-party site that publishes detailed nomination profiles for individuals recognized for their achievements. Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies of living persons, such as WP (General Notability Guideline), accept third-party recognition and profiles published on award platforms as potential sources. This source provides coverage that is independent and detailed enough to establish some notability.
The February issue of Moscow Tonight, available on MagCloud, includes four dedicated pages about the subject. This source should meet WP guidelines, as it provides detailed coverage on the individual. The fact that the magazine is behind a paywall does not negate its validity as a source, especially since Wikipedia encourages the use of reliable sources regardless of paywalls (WP). To address your concern about access, I am happy to provide additional details if needed."
I understand there may have been a translation challenge here, as the article on BBC 'Persian' references the individual within the broader context of cultural movements. The piece mentions notable figures, including the subject, associated with influential trends in this movement. BBC Persian is a reputable source, and while the English translation may lack some nuance, the article reflects the subject’s role within a culturally significant narrative, which aligns with WP when viewed as part of their broader impact. I’m happy to clarify any specific details from the source in the original Persian to ensure accurate representation. This source, while not comprehensive on its own, does contribute valuable context alongside other supporting sources that I am preparing to further substantiate the article.
Mashregh News Article on a Protest Song (Bella Ciao and artists who sang) : While this article is not just a film review and may not solely focus on the subject, it is worth noting that WP allows for multiple sources that contribute to notability as a collective rather than needing to be individually comprehensive. This piece references the subject within a context that showcases their influence and relevance, particularly within cultural discussions, which contributes to notability even if indirectly.
Roozaneh.net Biography (Appears to Be a Different Individual): I understand the concern here. It seems this website might be confusing in English translation but i have added this as there is a connection to related page as in the article it was mention of music collaboration and some refers. I am willing to remove it from consideration and focus on sources directly pertinent to the subject. My apologies for any confusion here.

Lanak20 (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to see more participation here besides the nominator and the article creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Carroll (lottery winner)

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

Lack of any real notability, apart from having won the lottery and being a moron. Lack of citations makes this even worse, as there's hardly anything to say about this guy. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a bit tricky because it does seem like there's a lot of "lasting" coverage, but most of it is just rehashing the same tabloid article going back many years and isn't quality. It seems like the only coverage in reliable sources is very clustered around his troubles with the law - I'd argue that if it's this, rather than the act of winning the lottery, that makes him notable, he fails WP:PERP. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only because it is shot thru with deprecatory bits... all true, all ref'd, but in the spirit of WP:BLP we don't want to do this, and you kind of can't delete all of it or you don't have an accurate article. If it wasn't for that, I'd probably say keep it. Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lacks significant coverage to meet WP:Notability (People). Even the lottery wins is uncited Tesleemah (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a spectacular idiot satisfies WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. Once notable, always notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article is very important, or to phrase it another way, no less important than many many others. Who are we to culturally filter what is kept? The number of actors/writers articles I pass by here who clearly curate their own pages, running them as C.Vs, and they all stay because they find some NYT books section reference to stave off deletion. This guy? He gets binned? Michael, his response to wealth, and the infamy it generated at the time in newspapers, is significant in U.K. early 2000s culture. It remaining is important in evidencing the wider implications for how money, culture, and class influence society. Wikipedia is damaged by loss of articles like these, and all the more so because people with poor socio-economic positions are simply pushed out of existence (literally, here), while those with means remain (and thus dominate). SFC9394 (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The New York Times dedicated 1,133 words on Carroll stating he is an object of "national fascination". There's been a documentary about the subject on mainstream UK television that itself has received critical attention from reliable sources. There's quite a lot of further coverage available. I see no reason why the subject fails to meet WP:BASIC. ResonantDis_tortion 15:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a lot of tabloidy coverage, but there is also stuff that is not tabloid at all. The fascination with him went beyond the surface level, and he does clearly meet WP:BASIC PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion as there is no consensus here. Please do not focus on the worthiness of the subject and what meaning having this article on Wikipedia portends to some classes of people. We are primarily interested in whether or not this subject is notable as demonstrated in reliable, secondary sources. Your personal opinions on the subject should not factor into your assessment of it. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he became one of the most prominent type-specimens of what can go wrong when someone wins the lottery and is unable to derive any lasting benefit from the event (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/19/curse-of-the-lottery-what-happened-next-to-four-winners). It wasn't just a brief flash of tabloid scandal, or even just sustained tabloid Schadenfreude; the coverage is across a broad spectrum of press, and connected to the social phenomenon of the lottery and what it does to lives. I appreciate the OP's concern about our reflecting tabloid muck-slinging; nevertheless, I think we need to keep the article, because we can at least summarise the entire coverage in a balanced way, which serves our readers (and Carroll) better than they'll get from a crude Google search. Elemimele (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (in reduced form) to Lottery#Outcomes_for_big_winners. There's very little there and some anecdotes about winners would be helpful. Much of the detail in this AfD'd article has little to do with his lottery win and is not, in itself, signficant. Lamona (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. There's consensus that the reviews of her book is enough for WP:NWRITER. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avivah Wittenberg-Cox

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable individual. Spam that smells of UPE. Ref-bombed and Dishonestly sourced largely with primary sources. Lacks coverage about her in independent reliable sources. Comments from her are not coverage about her. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, especially considering the lack of good sources (and the fact that the article is an orphan) SirBrahms (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, England, Canada, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added in multiple reviews of her 2008 book, and note that the article is not an orphan. That being said, it is rather promotional and I have started remove some of the duplicate citations. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is quoted in brief statements quite frequently, but I can find no other reviews of her books. I did some tidying up and removed references to promotional websites. The three news articles with the most extensive coverage that I can find are [25], the articles written by Carolyn Flynn for the Albuquerque Journal (newspaper.com clippings are in the article), and the 2018 article where she discusses her book Late Love [26]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article now lists three reviews of her book Why Women Mean Business, a promising start. But I didn't find any reviews of her other books listed in the selected works section. They appear self-published but it's the reviews more than the publisher that concerns me. One more reliably published review of a different book (not in Chautauquan Daily, her go-to publicity outlet) would push me over to a weak keep per WP:AUTHOR, but I don't think we should pass that criterion based on only one book. I don't think the other sources provide in-depth and independent coverage of her suitable for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are multiple WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. A number of these have been added since the AfD was initiated. Nnev66 (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- book reviewed by the NYTimes, cited as an expert in the field by Washington Post, and published as author by Harvard Business Review and Financial Times. There's promotion and fluff in the article, but I am happy to put the standard of external notability at a single book reviewed in the Times. It's not a slam dunk, but I think it's a keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 11:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The three book reviews (source 14) are more than enough for author notability. Could use a re-write, but this person is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Oaktree b. Meets WP:GNG. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 19:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Attractions

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

No evidence of notability separate from Elvis Costello. Most information of importance already covered in Costello's page DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elvis Costello. The key thing here is the album they released on their own, which despite the nominator's statement, isn't even mentioned in the Costello article. --Michig (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an album of any particular note. I'm not opposed to a merge but I don't think the Attractions doing an album without Costello is noteworthy for his page DeputyBeagle (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elvis Costello. Note that not all of the article has to be merged, and most of the text in this article is merely a wordier version of history already discussed at Costello's article. A few band-specific events can be squeezed in over there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did contribute some a bit to the article a few years ago, including adding the NF image and some sources. The only basis I'd argue the inclusion of notability would be the fact that the Attractions have been called one of the best backing bands in music history, but as the others have said, about 90% of their career is tied to EC. With that being said I think it would be fine to merge. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . This band were the backing group to a leading New Wave singer, which surely makes them notable. YTKJ (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if I understand the logic there. Nobody's denying Costello is notable, but they haven't done enough notable on their own to justify their own article. They need to have independent notability.

In the same way as how WP:BANDMEMBER doesn't give every member of a notable band its own, a backing band needs to be able to stand on their WP:BAND criteria seperately from Costello if they have their own article DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point, User: DeputyBeagle. Having looked at WP: BANDMEMBER and read the first item on the list of notability criteria under WP:BAND, I can say that I would not be opposed to a merge with or redirect to Elvis Costello. Just so long as the outcome of this discussion is not deletion - the band were too closely linked with Costello for that. YTKJ (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources show this is clearly notable!!! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D- Aside:@Liz, hello, if the undue bold mentioned in a recent message concerned this page, I am afraid it was not my deed but an unvolontary consequence of an edit by@YTKJ (fixed) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable, and also a very reasonable way of organizing content surrounding Costello. yes, there are other ways it could be done, but this way makes sense.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Milowent. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Austerby

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

Really cannot see any case for a separate article; this was until recently a redirect to Bourne, Lincolnshire. Which seem s appropriate. TheLongTone (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Skynxnex (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Austerby is described as a hamlet under the entry for Bourne in a Lincolnshire Trade Directory and appears on older Ordnance Survey maps. Austerby without "The" is a street name in The Austerby, Bourne. The ward's full name is Bourne Austerby. Pevsner has an Austerby Manor House as a titled entry, but notes it under Bourne. In a recent WikiProject UK geography discussion on whether UK wards required a separate article, most contributors thought they should be subject to passing the GNG - but one experienced editor was of the opinion wards come under WP:NPLACE and have a presumption of notability, so not clearcut. Close call but on balance, I support the nominator's redirect - to Bourne, Lincolnshire, though may change to keep, if further sources are put forward. Rupples (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Station, Boston

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

This is an electoral ward of just 2,700 people with a town of 45,000 people. All that the article really says is "the ward exists". It does not prove its notability and it is for that complete lack of notability that I am nominating it for deletion. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If not deleted, Redirect to Borough of Boston#Elections, which has a list of the wards and a link leading to Boston Borough Council elections and thence to pages such as 2023 Boston Borough Council election which give the detailed election results for the ward (2023 Boston Borough Council election#Station etc). And add to disambiguation page at Station#Places: if it has any encyclopedic value, it merits a dab page entry. PamD 14:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: On further consideration, as it isn't a place it probably shouldn't have comma disambiguation, so it should be renamed as Station (Boston ward) if it survives either as a page or as a redirect. (Or should that be "(Boston, Lincolnshire, ward)"? Should all these places being disambiguated as ", Boston" actually be disambiguated as ", Boston, Lincolnshire"?) PamD 15:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Redirect and/or merge to Boston, Lincolnshire as an alternative to deletion. It looks like the Politics section at least mentions the Station ward. – The Grid (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge to Boston, Lincolnshire#Borough Council wards or redirect to Borough of Boston#Elections per above. I would prefer the merging option. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 14:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND as a populated, legally recognized place. Not opposed to merging/redirecting. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A ward is not a legally recognised place, it is a political division which is not covered in GEOLAND. Therefore should meet GNG which this doesn't. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wards in the UK are legally recognised places. They are created by Acts of Parliament/Statutory Instruments and written into the statute book, you genuinely could not ask for more legal recognition. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge wards are political structures not places (unless the ward covers a legally recognised place) so do not meet GEOLAND. Merge to Boston.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have strong feelings about whether or not to delete this, just throwing another option into the discussion: you could merge/redirect to List of electoral wards in Lincolnshire. There's generally a limited and standard amount of encyclopaedic information that you can say about a ward, which makes them well suited to just using a table. Some of the other "List of electoral wards" articles - e.g. List of electoral wards in Bristol and List of electoral wards in Dorset give examples of how you could use tables to cover the main information (population, location, etc) about all Lincolnshire wards in one list article. Joe D (t) 13:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see a consensus against keep, but no clear consensus for where the article should be redirected/merged to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have 3 or 4 different Merge/Redirection target articles suggested and we need to get that down to one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Lee (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I lean keep because he's listed here[27] as having won the News of the World Darts Championship 1984-85. There's also mention of him in newspapers [28][29] [30][31]. He was also a competitor in the WDF World Cup in 1985 [32] and won the BDO Gold Cup in 1985[33]. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is any of this significant coverage? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I know there's no WP:NSPORT sub-criterion of presumed notability for darts based on a championship, so we have to rely strictly on WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. The examples linked by the "Keep" !voter above are all WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and do not qualify toward a WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Cinemas

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

Failing to find "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to meet WP:ORGCRIT. All sources are currently primary. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/7-things-scott-cinemas-bridgwater-2585607 ; https://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/20307914.exmouth-cinema-gets-42-000-government-funding/ and multiple other sources indicate a certain notability imv; at the very least could be redirected to list of film theater chains (currently AfDed.; same nom.) for example. I DpD the page; same nom . -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC) (nb-Needless to say I am opposed to deletion)[reply]
This is very trivial coverage, certainly not sufficient per WP:ORGDEPTH AusLondonder (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect Doesn’t merit an article of its own. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any redirect target in mind? Owen× ☎ 13:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Northern Ireland

Paul Watton

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:SPORTCRIT per nom. Literally the only things I can find about him are database entries with "he played in (and most of the time lost) these matches" and limited biographical information like name, age etc. [34], [35]. No news or WP:SIGCOV whatsoever - no human besides the creator of the article has written something about him. Molecular Pilot 09:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Northern Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CEWC Northern Ireland

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

I could not find significant coverage when searching under short name or full name. The 2nd source is a 1 line mention in a book.

Also nominating CEWC-Cymru for similar reasons. Both articles fail WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Northern Ireland, and Wales. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are two different nominations here. And my own recommendations are slightly different for both. Neither especially cut/dried. In terms of the:

CEWC-Cymru title, I think this should just be merged and redirected. To Welsh Centre for International Affairs. As, per the text and (granted primary) reference, the former charity now forms part of that organisation. And hence is a reasonable WP:ATD-R.
CEWC Northern Ireland title, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this should also be merged and redirected. To Council for Education in World Citizenship. Also as WP:ATD-R. Where the target would be updated so it is no longer a DAB page. But an article covering the "parent" org. I propose this because while, per nom, I do not see that the "CEWC Northern Ireland" org has/had independent notability, the "parent" org perhaps does. Much of the content at the Northern Ireland article could be merged to Council for Education in World Citizenship. With that title (no longer DAB) expanded to cover the concept as a whole. That org being the subject of significant coverage (as the primary topic) in at least one book and several journal articles. Indicating possible notability. There's certainly enough coverage for more than a stub (covering the English, Welsh and Northern Ireland "branches" of the org)...

My 2x cents anyway... Guliolopez (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Carlin

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Scotland

Gareth Dennis

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

This article came up at ANI, due to an IP address making inappropriate edits, and on closer inspection I don't think that the subject is notable. The article asserts that he has lectured at a couple of academic institutions, but he doesn't appear to be currently employed at either of them, and that wouldn't constitute an WP:NPROF pass anyway. His dismissal from a railway engineering firm was covered in the national press, but WP:BLP1E. He has written a book, but the reviews I'm finding for that are written on activist websites, railway fan forums and the like - it's not an WP:NAUTHOR pass. That leaves us with the idea that he is notable because he is interviewed in the press from time to time about matters concerning railway transportation; I'm not persuaded that that constitutes notability for our purposes. He may become notable in the future, if his writing attracts significant critical attention, but to my mind this article is premature. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Politics, Engineering, Scotland, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week redirect to Peter Hendy#Network Rail, where his sacking is covered. Despite enjoying his work, I have to agree that at present Dennis doesn't quite have enough coverage (per WP:BLP1E) to merit a standalone article (although I personally don't think he's too far off). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem to pass author notability for "How Railways will fix the Future", this is the only sort of "critical review" I could find [36] and I'm not sure if that even counts as a RS. Getting fired isn't terribly notable. I don't see him passing academic notability either. I'm not sure what's left for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just to be clear, I think trains are great, and the subject's advocacy and passion are probably for the good. But being interviewed a lot, getting sacked for maybe not choosing his words carefully enough, and writing one book with apparently one review (in something called Counterfire, "a revolutionary socialist organisation committed to transforming our society from one based on the profit motive to one built on the needs of working people" [37]), aren't even close to notability material. It's worth pointing out that the subject himself has edited the article recently, so we can assume that any worthwhile sources are already present in the article. E Eng 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be fair, as far as I can tell, Dennis only made two edits in August, which amounted to a change of the nationality of his father, which in the timeline of this article doesn't seem very recent. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't implying there was anything wrong with his edits. My point was simply that you can count on the subject to have added to the article any missing significant sources about himself, if any existed. (Or he might have raised them on the talk page.) E Eng 16:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can assume that. If there was an article on me, I probably wouldn't edit it or its talk page point blank as far as possible. If there was something bad enough that I felt I did need to do something I would likely stick to the talk page etc but whatever I did, would still only edit in relation to these important issues. And no matter how much else I felt was missing I likely wouldn't do anything about it, not even posting sources on the talk page. I'm not sure if I'd worry too much about the nationality of my father myself, but it can be a big deal for some. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting the book is only being published this month so it could be a case of WP:TOOSOON as far as reviews go. For this reason, if it can't be kept, I would support a redirect for now per @Cakelot1:'s suggestion. Starklinson (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and suggestion: stories about him are front page news in UK national newspapers today, please can we wait a while to make a decision, there are many new refs to add and very likely more in the next days. John Cummings (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt if any newspaper, anywhere in the world has front-page, today, that isn't entirely One Story. In terms of update, itself, it doesn't seem to change the WP:BLP1E calculation (it being an update to the "Hendy event"). Is your impression that we are likely to get any stories about Gareth, that don't concern his firing/Hendy? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind when newspapers were being prepared for Wednesday morning in the UK, it's fairly likely all that there was to say about the US election, was something like "Americans vote in monumental election" so it's not particularly surprising they had a lot of room for other stuff on their front pages. I'm sure their Thursday papers and any evening or other late editions might be different. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point remains though that this is still BLP1E - it looks like he ended up getting sacked because a government minister complained to his boss about something he said in an interview; that (now former) government minister has apologised, and that apology is resulting in news coverage. We can (and do) cover those controversial events in the article about the politician (although it looks like that might need a bit of updating in light of today's coverage), but it doesn't follow that we need an article about the individual who lost his job. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peter Hendy#Network Rail: Per above... About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 13:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Clark (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I can only find him in darts databases (with very minimal info like name, DOB, placing) and they seem to include every darts player that has played in a semi-professional comp. No news or evidence of other WP:SIGCOV as required by WP:SPORTSCRIT. Molecular Pilot 06:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stirling City Choir

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

A purely PROMOTIONal piece for a community group that has gained no INDEPENDENT coverage in the past 167 years. -- D'n'B-t -- 11:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. -- D'n'B-t -- 11:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Murray (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 4 November 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

Gareth Dennis

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

This article came up at ANI, due to an IP address making inappropriate edits, and on closer inspection I don't think that the subject is notable. The article asserts that he has lectured at a couple of academic institutions, but he doesn't appear to be currently employed at either of them, and that wouldn't constitute an WP:NPROF pass anyway. His dismissal from a railway engineering firm was covered in the national press, but WP:BLP1E. He has written a book, but the reviews I'm finding for that are written on activist websites, railway fan forums and the like - it's not an WP:NAUTHOR pass. That leaves us with the idea that he is notable because he is interviewed in the press from time to time about matters concerning railway transportation; I'm not persuaded that that constitutes notability for our purposes. He may become notable in the future, if his writing attracts significant critical attention, but to my mind this article is premature. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Politics, Engineering, Scotland, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week redirect to Peter Hendy#Network Rail, where his sacking is covered. Despite enjoying his work, I have to agree that at present Dennis doesn't quite have enough coverage (per WP:BLP1E) to merit a standalone article (although I personally don't think he's too far off). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem to pass author notability for "How Railways will fix the Future", this is the only sort of "critical review" I could find [38] and I'm not sure if that even counts as a RS. Getting fired isn't terribly notable. I don't see him passing academic notability either. I'm not sure what's left for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just to be clear, I think trains are great, and the subject's advocacy and passion are probably for the good. But being interviewed a lot, getting sacked for maybe not choosing his words carefully enough, and writing one book with apparently one review (in something called Counterfire, "a revolutionary socialist organisation committed to transforming our society from one based on the profit motive to one built on the needs of working people" [39]), aren't even close to notability material. It's worth pointing out that the subject himself has edited the article recently, so we can assume that any worthwhile sources are already present in the article. E Eng 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be fair, as far as I can tell, Dennis only made two edits in August, which amounted to a change of the nationality of his father, which in the timeline of this article doesn't seem very recent. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't implying there was anything wrong with his edits. My point was simply that you can count on the subject to have added to the article any missing significant sources about himself, if any existed. (Or he might have raised them on the talk page.) E Eng 16:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can assume that. If there was an article on me, I probably wouldn't edit it or its talk page point blank as far as possible. If there was something bad enough that I felt I did need to do something I would likely stick to the talk page etc but whatever I did, would still only edit in relation to these important issues. And no matter how much else I felt was missing I likely wouldn't do anything about it, not even posting sources on the talk page. I'm not sure if I'd worry too much about the nationality of my father myself, but it can be a big deal for some. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting the book is only being published this month so it could be a case of WP:TOOSOON as far as reviews go. For this reason, if it can't be kept, I would support a redirect for now per @Cakelot1:'s suggestion. Starklinson (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and suggestion: stories about him are front page news in UK national newspapers today, please can we wait a while to make a decision, there are many new refs to add and very likely more in the next days. John Cummings (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt if any newspaper, anywhere in the world has front-page, today, that isn't entirely One Story. In terms of update, itself, it doesn't seem to change the WP:BLP1E calculation (it being an update to the "Hendy event"). Is your impression that we are likely to get any stories about Gareth, that don't concern his firing/Hendy? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind when newspapers were being prepared for Wednesday morning in the UK, it's fairly likely all that there was to say about the US election, was something like "Americans vote in monumental election" so it's not particularly surprising they had a lot of room for other stuff on their front pages. I'm sure their Thursday papers and any evening or other late editions might be different. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point remains though that this is still BLP1E - it looks like he ended up getting sacked because a government minister complained to his boss about something he said in an interview; that (now former) government minister has apologised, and that apology is resulting in news coverage. We can (and do) cover those controversial events in the article about the politician (although it looks like that might need a bit of updating in light of today's coverage), but it doesn't follow that we need an article about the individual who lost his job. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peter Hendy#Network Rail: Per above... About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 13:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Worsley

AfDs for this article:

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. At best, minor notability for an incident involving Michael van Gerwen but nothing else. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CEWC Northern Ireland

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

I could not find significant coverage when searching under short name or full name. The 2nd source is a 1 line mention in a book.

Also nominating CEWC-Cymru for similar reasons. Both articles fail WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Northern Ireland, and Wales. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are two different nominations here. And my own recommendations are slightly different for both. Neither especially cut/dried. In terms of the:

CEWC-Cymru title, I think this should just be merged and redirected. To Welsh Centre for International Affairs. As, per the text and (granted primary) reference, the former charity now forms part of that organisation. And hence is a reasonable WP:ATD-R.
CEWC Northern Ireland title, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this should also be merged and redirected. To Council for Education in World Citizenship. Also as WP:ATD-R. Where the target would be updated so it is no longer a DAB page. But an article covering the "parent" org. I propose this because while, per nom, I do not see that the "CEWC Northern Ireland" org has/had independent notability, the "parent" org perhaps does. Much of the content at the Northern Ireland article could be merged to Council for Education in World Citizenship. With that title (no longer DAB) expanded to cover the concept as a whole. That org being the subject of significant coverage (as the primary topic) in at least one book and several journal articles. Indicating possible notability. There's certainly enough coverage for more than a stub (covering the English, Welsh and Northern Ireland "branches" of the org)...

My 2x cents anyway... Guliolopez (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deeside College

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

Badly written, barely sourced promotional article about a college that ceased to exist in 2013. At best some elements could be transferred over to a history section in Coleg Cambria. If you look at this edit and compare the section headings with those in this wayback machine snapshot of the college's history, you will see that it is very likely that the content is straight copy/paste copyvio - even though the original content was not archived by wayback machine and is therefore likely lost. However, you can see 100% that the list of college principals is lifted word for word from the the college history page. The content is highly suspect and a proper analysis might show a drastic revdel is needed. Best option is just to go ahead and delete the article. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Wales. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, badly written is not a WP:DELREASON (WP:CONTN). It clearly has the history and can also be converted to a contemporary campus article. Dissolved colleges don't lose notability. Merging all the colleges into Coleg Cambria would be messy as it is a multi-campus merged college, and like merging all of Cambridge's colleges into Cambridge Uni. Dank Jae 21:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you re-read my reasoning above as I just edited it. Sorry. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would WP:TNT apply? If it is specifically this version of the article needing deletion based on quality/copyvio issues, but the topic remains notable? Ideally needing a full re-write or re-do?

I'd argue it is still notable, regardless of when it ceased, and while it may not be a separate college anymore, it operates a distinct campus and programme within Coleg Cambria. Always was on my to-do list to convert to a campus and history article. Dank Jae 22:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blow it up and start over would be wonderful. In fact I'd help you re-write it from scratch. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete on the basis for re-write WP:TNT, but not on notability concerns (otherwise keep), oppose any merge. Del based on lots of potential copyvio revisions and mass unsourced content. Additionally, the article may be converted into the contemporary campus, meaning a re-write may have little resemblance with the current, as well as the sheer amount of review needed for the current unsourced content, so best TNT. Any links to the deleted article should be kept, in anticipation of a revival. Additionally lots of the content dates to a 2010 version (or before), so the sources may be harder to find today for that in-depth content and haven't been added for over a decade. However, still open to a keep and re-write, if there's agreement for the current version to be massively cut if not deleted. Dank Jae 22:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TNT is an essay and not policy, but this may be an excellent case for using it anyway (and as IAR is policy, if that is an agreed outcome that improved the encyclopaedia, the fact it is an essay does not mitigate against its use). However, before !voting to delete with no prejudice against immediate recreation, could we sense check the notability? What reliable, independent and secondary sources cover the college from which the new article would be written? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, here's some indepth ones on bits of its history, [40][41][42][43], as well as the main college source right now [44]. There are many news articles on various aspects of the college from the BBC at least, [45], and likely other news sites.[46] Likely some scattered/niche history around too, although the years passed have made it a bit harder to find.

A re-written article may also combine the contemporary campus it is today post-merger, possibly renamed Coleg Cambria, Deeside? But nonetheless to avoid the copyvio issues and over-reliance on one source, won't necessarily be as long or in-depth as the article is now. But surely enough?

Yes TNT is an essay, I also used one del reason, but recognise it isn't clear-cut. Dank Jae 01:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:TNT but allow recreation of an article without copyvio. However, that new article should probably be Coleg Cambria, Deeside, which would contain the history of Deeside College and its former names, Kelsterton College of technology and Flintshire Technology college. Usually when we cover a successor school or college, the article is named for the extant institution and contains the information of the previous institutions in its history. We would redirect the former names to the successor. If the editorial decision is to do it this way, then Deeside College should be recreated as a redirect to Coleg Cambria. But because of the copyvio, it should be deleted first.
Looking at the sources from DankJae, the first two cover Deeside college under that name. Newspaper coverage needs some caution regarding whether coverage is secondary and independent, but that article seems to meet SIGCOV, and is arguably secondary. Independence is unknown. The Coflein source would be good enough under WP:NBUILD for the building, but not under NORG for the organisation. However it is indicative. The book, Further education in Wales, is not independent. The other book, Clwyd: Denbighshire and Flintshire, is independent and secondary. It would not meet WP:CORPDEPTH if we were being very strict about this. But, on balance, we have a range of sources over a long period, some significant coverage, and a college that has existed under several names for many years and with a building that is recognised in a national database. I believe this is enough to demonstrate notability for a combined article. Thanks to DankJae for finding the sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. AfD is not cleanup and it clearly deserves to have an article under this title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except if we keep it we have to revdel the whole thing. What exactly would we be keeping? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently 96.3% Copyvio? So what next? if kept. Dank Jae 19:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just reduce to a stub. Simple! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK but the answer is that we are not actually keeping anything. I don't see the benefit of keeping and revdelling to a stub over deletion with immediate re-creation under either this name of or as Coleg Cambria, Deeside. Except that if we do change the name to the current institution we would immediately have to start an RM for the empty stub. That would be a waste of time. So what we need to decide is whether the recreation has this name (its former name) or whether we should write about the successor institution, with its history of the former names (3 of them) contained in that article. If we do the latter, TNT is better for the encyclopaedia. If we choose the former name, I expect it is entirely within the gift of the closer as to which is chosen. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall James

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as a former WDF World Championship runner-up and World Masters semi-finalist, there appears to be a great deal of significant coverage of the subject in Welsh (Llanelli Star, South Wales Echo) and other (Liverpool Echo, Aberdeen Evening Express) papers, but a lot of it is hidden behind a paywall. If I can get access to these papers later in the week I'll assess the coverage and update my vote; if anyone else has access to them it may be worth a look. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Registering a keep vote in light of the below comment, but will update further if I get granted access to the newspaper archive for the aforementioned articles. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage here and although my BNA access has expired, here's a story titled "Top of the World: Marshall James", which is almost certainly sigcov. He was second-best at the world championships! BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a six paragraph article that summarises a six year career really "significant coverage"? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a 300+ word article on the then-second-best darts player in the world, as well as what appears to be a feature on 'Top of the World: Marshall James', count for notability? Of course it does. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep describing him as being the "second-best darts player in the world" and this is just categorically not true. Are you seriously suggesting he was better than Phil Taylor? Two articles do not make significant coverage, especially when one of which you have admitted you have no idea what it even is. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep describing him as being the "second-best darts player in the world" and this is just categorically not true. – I'll admit I'm not super familiar with darts, but didn't James finish as the runner-up at the World Championships? Wouldn't being runner-up at the World Championships be second best in the world? And two articles can absolutely be significant coverage; the general notability guideline says that's all that's required for notability (two pieces of coverage). What do you think the odds are that a story titled, "Top of the World: Marshall James", is not significant coverage? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He finished runner-up at a (not the) World Championship and then proceeded to do absolutely nothing of note ever again. Does a darts player from Llanelli having potentially one article in a Llanelli newspaper, and a six paragraph article on a darts website, really count for notability? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does having significant coverage from two independent outlets for a runner-up at a World Darts Championship count for notability? Absolutely if you go by GNG, which only requires two significant sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, to keep up-to-date. That's one "significant" source. And one source you freely admit you haven't read. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're allowed to use common sense. The odds that both the 'Top of the World' source is insignificant and that there's no further coverage of him anywhere is incredibly small, especially given that Ser! has found paywalled articles in four additional newspapers. That you're unable to answer whether you've done any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all for over one hundred darts articles you've rapidly nominated or proposed for deletion is concerning as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice personal attack there. Not content with doing it on my own talk page you now choose to do it here too! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out that you've refused on three occasions to answer the basic question of whether or not you've done a BEFORE search is not a personal attack... BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You assuming that I haven't, and constantly repeating the claim, is a personal attack. What on earth makes you think I haven't? Because you found that the British library has an article in the Llanelli Post about him from 27 years ago? 🤣 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsKesha: What on earth makes you think I haven't? – because I asked "Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all?" – and you responded that the articles are old, and then I asked "Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all?" – and you responded that I need to AGF – and then I asked "Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all?" – and you told me to get off your talk page – and then here you called it a personal attack, and when asked ... you responded that "What on earth makes you think I haven't? 🤣" – this absolute refusal to answer the question while nominating / proposing hundreds of articles for deletion is disruptive. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK 👍 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the entirety of the BNA article, content on James bolded:
[D]arts ace Marshall James added another trophy to his impressive collection recently - after winning a world championship. Marshall was a member of the Wales short man squad that won the world championship in Perth, Sydney, recently. Another player from the area Eric Burden was also in the side with the others being Sean Palfrey of Newport and Martin Phillips from North Wales. With 35 countries taking part Wales beat a star studded England side in final by nine legs to six. Wales came away with three gold medals and one bronze. Marshall lost in the semi-final of the Embassy Gold Cup singles on Saturday to world number 1 Mervin King 2-1. Another Welsh player Shaun [sic] Palfrey went on to take the title beating King 2-0 in the final. Marshall was recognized for his achievement this week when he was chosen as winner of the Walter Hughes Cup, one of the Brin Isaac Memorial Fund awards.

I'm not convinced ~4 sentences in an un-bylined hyper-local blurb announcing his darts competition results for that week counts toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - My main concern here is that DartsNews is not obviously a reliable source and some work needs to be done to establish whether it is or isn't. My real sticking point on any bio article is "can we write a reliably-sourced encyclopaedia article, and not simply a database-entry, about the subject", and if Dartsnews is reliable then probably we can. BeanieFan11 - any views on this? FOARP (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I really need to figure out how to get re-subscribed to the BNA; there appeared to be a decent bit of coverage there (highly likely enough to write a reliably-sourced encyclopaedia article, and not simply a database-entry, about the subject, I'd say)... As for Dartsnews, they appear to have an editing staff. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Mostly just on AGF, give-keep-a-chance grounds. DartsNews gives sigcov but feels like a peripheral source even if it is a WP:NEWSORG. There is no BIO equivalent of WP:AUD and local coverage shouldn't be excluded entirely, so I see no reason to dismiss coverage just because it was in a Llanelli newspaper, but it is also borderline for WP:SIGCOV. The real question for me is "can we have an article that isn't just sports-stats", and we just about can. Since the internet archive is now working again (albeit slow) I did a little search there and I see that, except for mentioning him a couple of times when discussing other players, he isn't listed in this book about the top 50 darts players, so I think that safely answers the question of how great this guy was. FOARP (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007

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

There are no secondary sources on the for this page. There are no secondary sources on the specific subject of this page, as far as I can see. There is a page on Legislative Competence Order, which I think would provide a good redirect destination. SqrtLog (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 13:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I see no reason to remove it? There is useful content here. I will go look for some secondary sourcing and coverage, but as an article it sticks very closely to the original LCO. Nothing is lost by leaving it. Flatthew (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have been reading about the order. It appears it essentially governed Conduct in National Assembly elections between 2007 and 2020. That is quite clearly significant enough to be retained. I do not know how whoever wrote this page managed to downplay it's significance as substantially as they did, but I'm working on resolving that now. Flatthew (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Legislative Competence Order: Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, this should be covered in the Legislative Competence Order article, which is currently a stub. Each new LCO doesn't need its own article, and this can be covered with due weight in the target article. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If @Flatthew can show that this is independently notable and there's so much information that a separate article is needed, I'll change my !vote, but I couldn't find all that much in-depth coverage about the 2007 order in particular. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, I can't find much beyond mention of how it has been amended since. I think it's clear it has to be merged with something if it is to be retained. I think the issue is the things it would have to be merged with don't seem to have their own distinct articles either. I think it would be a shame for it to disappear, which is essentially what merging into the LCO page seems to do, given they just go into a table with no information about each order. Functionally merging is deletion here, but that might have to be the way. Flatthew (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be merged to the table; new sections can be added for each sorta notable Order in the LCO article. The LCO article also needs a general overview/history section. If you're interested, I encourage you to work on that article; it can be brought up to much better quality. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has been on my list for a while to have a crack at that one, this would be a good push for it. Yeah, seems like the way to do it. Flatthew (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about Welsh law, but if you end up needing a second set of eyes, feel free to ping me on LCO article talk voorts (talk/contributions) 16:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure what content here would make another article more informative or is otherwise notable enough for inclusion - it seems the order's changes are almost entirely making it consistent with or enabling changes made elsewhere. I think it would be sufficient to include the order in the LCO list (and a redirect would then be appropriate), but doesn't need its own section there. There may be merit to an article on the original 1999 LCO or the 2003 version (if it changed anything major), but I don't think they'd use anything substantial from here. I'll admit I'm not terribly familiar with the conduct of Welsh elections or Welsh politics generally but I'm pretty comfortable assuming that whether a returning officer for an election needs to reside in the constituency for which they are responsible isn't more of a hot button issue there than is suggested by the dearth of secondary sources. Chaste Krassley (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Legislative Competence Order (or any other appropriate article) per voorts. I don't find sufficient information for it to be a standalone article, but it could be kept nonetheless in a seperate article. Takipoint123 (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Hywel ab Owain (via WP:PROD on 2 November 2024)

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

[1] "Hydra Villages". Greekacom. 19 July 2008. Retrieved 2 November 2024.

[2] "Apanemi Mansion hydra, Rooms to Let in Hydra". Αρχοντικό Apanemi hydra, Ενοικιαζόμενα Δωμάτια στην Ύδρα. Retrieved 2 November 2024.

[1]

[2]

United Kingdom

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

England

Others

Northern Ireland

Others

Scotland

Others

Wales

Others

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.