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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:30, 31 March 2025

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Sopher

AfDs for this article:

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

I responded to a speedy tag this morning as G4, recreation of an article previously deleted at XfD. In the moment, I believed the sourcing similar to that when it was first deleted. After another admin disagreed I was happy to undo the G4. Now I'm asking for re-assessment of this version, since I wasn't given the opportunity to question the SIGCOV in my purely administrative tasks. I assert these sources are marginal at best, and the page creator was blocked for promotional ediitng several years ago. I have no presented reason to believe this wealthy businessman is any more notable than any other wealthy businessman. BusterD (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and United Kingdom. BusterD (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Articles are either about being one of the to hedge fund managers, where he's mentioned in a list with about 19 others, or this [1] about planting a tree in Saudi Arabia as a sign of interfaith "togetherness" for lack of a better word. I don't see sources 1 and 4 in the article as being only about this person. Rest aren't RS per Cite HIghlighter. Being one in a list of 20 and planting trees aren't quite enough for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He has been covered by Maneet Ahuja in her books and numerous reliable sources, including Reuters, the New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal. As the Chairman of LCH Investments, the world’s oldest fund of hedge funds, he is also responsible for compiling the annual list of top hedge funds. in addition, he holds distinguished positions at notable organizations like the Woolf Institute, Alliance Israélite Universelle, and the Center for Jewish History. If these credentials are not sufficient to establish notability for a hedge fund manager, then what would be? In fact, many existing Wikipedia pages on cite fewer sources than his.Jiuantaui (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are not particularly strong arguments. Both Oaktree b and I have read the applied sources already, and neither of us are impressed. Remember, we are discussing this pagespace, not any of that other category pagespace. BusterD (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need sourcing about the person. You can be whatever and get an article here if you have enough sourcing. Being notable but having poor sourcing is the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing looks not that good. Perhaps can be expanded, though I am not sure if the subject is notable for stand alone article. Feels like an employee made this page. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Dust (magazine)

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

The article is an advertisement for a non-existent magazine from the UK. Aquabluetesla (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not meet criteria of WP:GNG --Xrimonciam (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2025 (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.

Rick Yvanovich

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

Please see this diff from before I removed a section. I wasn't going to AfD this at first, but after digging into it more, I don't see any redeemable sources, nor could I find any on my own. This article was created by a paid editor and moved from the draftspace themselves, however, it occurred 110 days ago so draftification was not an option. The only source that could be approaching significant coverage is the Yahoo News article, everything else is primary sources, WP:PASSINGMENTIONS, etc. Without the puffery, this article says little more than "This is someone who exists." MediaKyle (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MediaKyle (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philippines, Vietnam, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 6 April 2025 (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 delete‎. ✗plicit 10:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IJEX

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

Contested draftification: non-notable cryptocurrency exchange. [2] and [3] are likely paid sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Singapore, United Kingdom, Canada, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP, no reliable secondary sourcing. Clear WP:COI with the article creator. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 21:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sourcing; entirely press releases. Hmr (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The sole (unbolded) call for retention does not address the key issue of the absence of SIGCOV in the cited sources, crucially required for a BLP. Owen× ☎ 18:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Volk

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

Contested draftification. None of the cited sources provide direct and in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Russia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. No list of collaborations will make this person any closer to notability. Bearian (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument referencing WP:NOTINHERITED is misplaced in this case. The article subject, Alex Volk, meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG) because he has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. These sources include coverage in Popcake, TotalRock, Metro Moscow, Rambler, and IMI, all of which describe Volk’s direct role as an entrepreneur and creative producer, not merely through association with others. Furthermore, the subject passes WP:BIO and WP:CORP standards: Volk is the founder and CEO of Lookport, a platform that introduced innovative VR concert streaming and AI-driven ticketing solutions. These activities were covered in independent media outlets. He has organized internationally recognized events, including VR concerts and a tribute show to t.A.T.u., which were widely reported in the media and involved international artists (e.g., Thirty Seconds to Mars, Pain, Imany). His work in both the tech and music industries has gained substantial attention, which is precisely what Wikipedia’s notability guidelines require. The subject’s achievements are independently covered, and the sources provide significant, direct, and detailed information about his professional career, not trivial mentions or inherited fame. The article clearly documents notable contributions to popular culture and the tech/music industry. Therefore, it satisfies the notability criteria and does not violate WP:NOTINHERITED. Eveleist (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Central Operatic Society

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

Completely unnotable. Searching it up yields 71 results on google, with none being anything that would indicate any form of notability. Absolutely zero significant coverage by outside sources. Article is also quite promotional, and at times reads like an advert. Article is also extraordinarily outdated, listing events in 2018 as upcoming. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Music, Theatre, Entertainment, Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 06:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Between Night and Day

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

Fails WP:GNG. I was unable to locate any WP:SIGCOV on this film. The few hit I did get in google books were all highly perfunctory and did not rise to level of coverage as described in WP:NFILM.4meter4 (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 12:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: added things; seems notable enough; a redirect is absolutely warranted so needless to say I am very opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 13:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Portugal and Spain. -Mushy Yank. 16:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 20:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to what has already been added, there seems to be some SIGCOV here, though I don't have access. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been significantly improved since nomination with the addition of content referenced to multiple reliable sources that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Investindustrial

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

Appears to be a non-notable organization. All sources are affiliated or routine business news. Google search didn't find anything other than these kinds of sources. Valereee (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. Valereee (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, lots of routine announcements and press release but nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Simply fails to meet the requirements for WP:ORGCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Order of precedence in the Isle of Man

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

No sources cited, and I couldn't find any sources to cite or to verify the information Landpin (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:LISTBIO. Created in 2006 with no intro as to its purpose, no sourcing. Creator User: Manxy3 has not been active since 2008. — Maile (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the IOM's legislation WWW site, and looked into law and peerage books, and found nothing about this at all. If this exists at all, and wasn't just made up on Wikipedia from whole cloth, as far as I can determine no-one has written it down. There's no evidence that any of the English laws about precedence apply to the Isle of Man, either. None of the books that discuss them (e.g. the one by Charles George Young, Order of precedence, with authorities and remarks at the Internet Archive) even mention the Isle of Man or these offices. It is unverifiable that this even exists. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable award. Azuredivay (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Award? How on Earth did you get the idea that this is an award? Uncle G (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTBIO. >>> Extorc.talk 06:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ per WP:BLP1E. RL0919 (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kate King

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

I do not see that any of the citations are substantial enough to establish notability, & could not find anything better; search throws up other people with the same name TheLongTone (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced entirely to Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, and an interview; the only sources not those are not in fact about this person. The YouTube account has been emptied, and the Twitter posts are marked as "parody". This falls far below the sourcing bar for biographies. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage - everything except one incident is entirely sourced by social media. That one incident is terrible, and sourced by BBC, but is a classic WP:BLP1E situation. I'm not excusing any racist jokes: I'm saying it's just not notable. Bearian (talk)
Delete: Subject lacks the sustained coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Appears to be a WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Recruitment

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

Company is not notable - Google search reveals no reliable news and few other sources. Existing references over-reliant on company-derived PR material (plus non-reliable LinkedIn and company website). Paul W (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails GNG. Delete as per nomination. Given sources are not significant neither secondary. Rahmatula786 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't been able to find any independent coverage. Toadspike [Talk] 22:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find sources about the company in my searches for sources. Maxim Recruitment does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORGSIG and WP:ORGCRITE, no valid secondary sourcing. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia McCullough case

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. All of the sources are primary news reports which follow the trial with little outside commentary. Does not pass notability for crime specifically. News reports can be secondary, but none of the ones on this trial are because they are just recapping the legal process. The event did not have any specific consequences, news was largely localized, and there isn’t any coverage after the trial ended. This is also a PSEUDO biography of the perpetrator instead of an actual event article, which this also has issues with (pseudo isn’t a guideline but it does raise the question of whether we should judge this by criminal notability guidelines instead which this also fails). PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and United Kingdom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG with extensive, international coverage in WP:RS (including just what's already cited in the article) and even a documentary retelling the story 5 years after the event ([4]). Does need a rename to focus on the murders, but that's not for WP:AFD. Longhornsg (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it actually international? All coverage I could find was local or localized to England. And most of the coverage I did find was trial updates. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s worth noting that under English law very little may be reported about a criminal case before the trial, because it is generally considered inappropriate to comment publicly on cases where criminal proceedings are ongoing. There are exceptions, such as the 2024 Southport attack, which attracted a lot of media attention because of the shocking nature of what happened, but this tends to unusual. Therefore, it’s not surprising that most of the details about what happened in this case were reported while the trial was ongoing, and more importantly, after the verdict. This is Paul (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that doesn't prove notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This definitely passes WP:GNG, and I would argue also passes WP:NEVENT, since it received widespread coverage from national UK media outlets. Several hundred murders are committed in the UK each year, and the nature of this one makes it stand out from the rest. Not only is parricide a rare crime, the length of time the perpetrator was able to conceal the crime while continuing to live in her parents’ home, keep up the pretence they were still alive, claim welfare for them, etc, is also unusual. Many people go missing, and are generally reported to the authorities as missing fairly soon after they disappear, but in this instance the McCulloughs' absence appears not to have raised sufficient concern to raise the matter with the authorities for several years. A note on the article; it isn’t meant to be a biography of the perpetrator, and in fact most of it concerns the crime and the subsequent ramifications, so I would support a move to Murders of John and Lois McCullough. This is Paul (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since the page is the subject of an ongoing move discussion, shouldn't that have been concluded before it ended up here? This is Paul (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly odd that the proposer of the move discussion decided to nominate it here in the middle of their own discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't pass GNG because all sources are primary as simply recitations of legal proceedings. There is nothing to say on it beyond that it happened. While debating the move I was looking at the sources to judge if there was a common name and found them unsatisfactory to prove notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The documentary mentioned above is certainly a secondary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This and this may also qualify as secondary sources, and demonstrate ongoing interest/coverage, although they don't appear in the article at present, and I'd hold off adding them for now. There's also this article] that I think discusses aspects of the case ahead of the documentary, but it's behind a paywall so I can't access it. This is Paul (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ongoing coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the sourcing is news coverage, which does not meet WP:SUSTAINED or WP:GNG's requirement of secondary sources. !Votes citing news coverage as meeting GNG can be safely WP:DISCARDed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For WP:GNG we require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and Sources should be secondary sources. The nom. and Thebiguglyalien are correct to call out immediate news reporting after the conviction as primary news reporting, and this is a fairly recent conviction (October of last year) which has given limited time to produce secondary sources, as reporting restrictions in the UK would prevent publishing prior to the conviction. But there is one very good example of a secondary source, given above. The documentary, Killed By Our Daughter: The McCullough Murders (2024), is a secondary source from a national broadcaster and widely disseminated. To clearly meet GNG we need multiple sources, and there are not yet any mentions in books that I can find. However, this is one of those occasions where it simply stands to reason that this one will be covered in books and other such sources in the future. The unusual nature of the crime, in that it was unnoticed so long, will certainly gain such notice, and it will also be recognised for other aspects, such as the debt spiral. This will find itself into additional sources. We shouldn't, however, keep articles just because we believe they will be notable one day. There should be no article if we do not have the sources to write the article (although this is too often ignored). Nevertheless, in this case we do have sufficient sources to write the article. The documentary is an excellent source, and it is likely that there is enough coverage in the extensive news reporting to pursue this. I note that even the Lucy Letby article only got its second secondary source at the end of last year, but no one would have deleted that article either. So this is a keep for me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note Just a reminder in case anybody misses this - there is still an active move discussion over at Talk:Virginia McCullough case, the result of which hinges on this discussion (at least, that's my interpretation, although the move discussion predates this, both are related as a delete closure here might result in either deletion, or at least deciding whether the present topic is actually notable) ASUKITE 15:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caprinos Pizza

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

questionable notability, as it relies predominantly on sources too closely associated with the subject and lacks significant independent coverage in reputable publications. Additionally, the article presents a promotional tone, failing to provide enough credible, verifiable content to justify its presence as a standalone entry on Wikipedia. Mapsama (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is notable, the page documents an uprising multinational Pizza parlour, despite this, one of the few things I agree with is the fact there's too much promotional content, these are leftovers from when a caprinos employee tried to edit Wikipedia for their favor. If you CAN find reliable sources about the topic please link them below.

- WinterJunpei :3 20:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Review: Colchester Caprinos a great option for pizza-lovers". Daily Gazette. 2024-03-03. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The review notes: "Caprinos Pizza opened in North Station Road last September. ... Walking in, I was instantly very impressed by the décor, which felt modern and clean. I was greeted warmly by a staff member and the service was quick, not just because I was the only one there. After deliberating and then realising I was actually not that hungry, I decided to go for a small margherita pizza with a BBQ dip, as well as a side of fries. For just £9.48, £6.99 of which was for the pizza, the price was definitely a positive. It was a short ten-minute wait for the cooking and prep before I collected the goods and headed home to try it out. I was pleasantly surprised with the pizza itself. It was full of flavour and tasted delicious. ... The fries were a little disappointing. However - as with many things, they were made better by the dipping sauce."
2. Aldridge, James (2024-09-27). "Pizza chain in Reading could keep selling food at 4am". Reading Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "Caprinos Pizza in Wokingham Road is a chain takeaway that serves up a range of pizzas, sides, salads, wraps, desserts, milkshakes and more. Caprinos is a growing chain, opening up in Reading in the Spring of 2021, taking over from the closed Christian Community Action charity shop. It has nearly 100 takeaways in the UK, with other locations in Thatcham, Newbury and Slough. The chain is a decade old, with the first Caprinos Pizza opening 20 miles away in Didcot in 2014."
3. Manuschka, Jacob (2024-08-08). "Oxford United kit to feature Caprinos Pizza logo this season". Bicester Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "Oxford United has partnered with a pizza company in a deal which will see the firm become the official sleeve sponsor of the men's team. Caprinos Pizza, a chain founded in Oxfordshire, will sponsor the team for the 2024/25 season. ... Established in 2014, Caprinos Pizza has expanded to now have 99 stores across the UK, Ireland and Pakistan. In 2021, it opened its 40th branch, in Northcourt, Abingdon, having started with a store in Broadway, Didcot. ... The pizza takeaway service quickly became extremely popular within Didcot, causing the owners to branch out to other towns across the South East."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Caprinos Pizza to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The news articles of this chain are limited to local papers talking about new stores opening. The only exceptions are a couple articles saying that one franchise wanted to open late and a local paper saying that they sponsored a regional football team. Moritoriko (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is like Jimbo Wales writing about his the restaurant he went to and WP isn't Wikivoyage, so Delete. IgelRM (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Really only of local interest. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even the sources given above seem hyper-local, with nothing beyond routine local news. I don't see any national or international sourcing... Being a great local place is fine, but we need something more than what we have for sourcing to be notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eleos insurance

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

Lack of notability, as it is primarily supported by limited sources that do not provide significant coverage Mapsama (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The nomination claims Eleos Insurance lacks notability due to limited sources and insufficient significant coverage. However, there is evidence suggesting otherwise. Just a search on Google news highlights many. They seem to have partnerships with well-known financial companies. Additionally, industry papers & media have covered Eleos’s role extensively. All these points to a level of recognition and impact that supports notability beyond limited scope. Bytanco (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Routine press releases, funding rounds, partnerships are not helpful, see WP:ORGTRIV. There is not much in mainstream media. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs amendment rather than deletion. Additional reliable secondary sources from industry publications, financial news, and regulatory filings should be incorporated. The subject appears to meet notability criteria, but requires better sourcing, which aligns with Wikipedia's preference for improvement over deletion. Wikinoleakshere (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with... Routine press releases, funding rounds, partnerships are not helpful,VViking_TalkEdits 14:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Hall

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years. Suggest that there is little independent third party sources showing that this student accommodation is notable and WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2025 (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.

Imperial College Halls of Residence

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

Little on the page to suggest that this topic has independent notability outside of Imperial College London. Suggest at best it could be merged because of WP:NOTEVERYTHING but also suspect that detailed guff about student accommodation is unlikely to be notable even there. JMWt (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose At least two of the current halls of residence and one former hall discussed in the article are notable as listed buildings per WP:GEOFEAT:

"Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable."

There is also evidence of notability for other halls, with significant coverage in the Evening Standard and ITV News, as well as in the trade magazine The Construction Index. That much of the page is sourced back to Imperial does not affect notability. Robminchin (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as listed buildings per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need for a separate article about student accommodation. Beside that, it looks rather promotional due to the fact that most of the sources are related to the subject. The Banner talk 17:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:39, 9 April 2025 (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 is a clear consensus that the subject is notable, with an entry in the Dictionary of Irish Biography. Two users requested deletion on the Talk page, but they did not question the subject's notability and the article seems not to violate copyright. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 10:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard St George Mansergh-St George

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 17#Richard St George Mansergh-St George. Article was restored after being subject to a BLAR in 2019. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Ireland, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: I found the copyright page [here] that has apparently been transcribed word of word. However, from what I see online it appears the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant an article and there are quite a few other independent sources that could be used to rewrite this, perhaps using some of this source to create perfectly acceptable article. Perhaps draftify or start a sandbox that can be worked on by some interested editors. ww2censor (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The original 4 line 2010 WP article contains the (mis-cast) words the name of 'St George' was assumed on inheriting his maternal uncle's property, Richard St George Mansergh-St George, the words following ‘Mansergh’ are inserted a little later here; the 2013 article by Matranga says the name of ‘St George’ following ‘Mansergh’ was assumed on inheriting his maternal uncle’s property, Richard St George Mansergh-St George. The Matranga article has a copyright date of 2012-13, but that does not push it back before the earliest WP version, nor do we know what the 2012 version of the Matraga article looks like. I don't see any sign in the WP article's history that it has been cut-and-pasted, instead it seems to have been developed a step at a time. It looks to me that either the Matranga article is the copyvio, or Matranga is one and the same as the main Wikipedia editor of our article.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Note, I say mis-cast because the sentence implies that "Richard St George Mansergh-St George" is the property, not the uncle. I don't see this phraseology arising independently. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: The main author has, on the talk page of the article, requested deletion, as they want the material only to appear on their web site, that being cited above. They previously requested this in 2019.
There is a note on the talk page that explains that this article is the origin of the external article, which has been there since 2013. Nominators for deletion are expected to check the talk page, this is part of the documented process. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:ANYBIO#3 with an entry in the Dictionary of Irish Biography. Curbon7 (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In terms of the title/article, the subject demonstrably meets WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. In terms of the content, if there is a COPYVIO issue (and I personally do not follow or understand how that claim can be made by the editor making the claim), that issue can be addressed via WP:REVDEL. Rather than outright deletion of the title. Guliolopez (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dictionary of Irish Biography entry is sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what a remarkable life, well-attested, with significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is established. The editor who has requested deletion on the article's Talk page (I'm not sure if this is Cowpoke49 or Nicholas F Matranga) should review WP:CRANDO: "If you contribute text directly to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public for reuse under CC BY-SA and GFDL .... you can never retract or alter the license for copies of materials that you place here; these copies will remain so licensed until they enter the public domain when your copyright expires (currently some decades after an author's death)." The reminder that we agree to release our contribution under license appears in the Edit box every time we edit anything on WP. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BAFTA Award for Best Animation

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

Content split from BAFTA Award for Best Animated Film. It seems the category was discontinued in the early 80s and re-introduced in the 00's (as can be seen here. This is not a valid rationale for splitting out content. It is the same category, and the content should be kept together so that readers have all of the information in the same place. If the article needed to be split out for size reasons (which wasn't the case here) it was important that the article split did not create the false impression they were seperate categories. The split-off version is superfluous in any case now because I have reverted the split on the parent article. Betty Logan (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. Betty Logan (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've finished editing the article BAFTA Award for Best Animated Film to reflect the changes that were made at BAFTA Award for Best Animation (table year numbering, etc). So I think BAFTA Award for Best Animation can now be safely deleted. Nick R^Talk 14:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Was the award always called the BAFTA Award for Best Animated Film? If so, then this spinoff doesn't make sense because it's making up an award name/category that doesn't exist. If it was ever called the BAFTA Award for Best Animation then that might make a spinoff somewhat justified unless there's coverage stating that the award was specifically retitled to Best Animated Film prior to the shorts spinning off on their own. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although, if the BAFTA does refer to the older awards as Best Animated Film then that would work against a spinoff. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, it's possible that the BAFTA website's awards archive has changed/simplified the awards' historical names from what they originally were, for convenience in searching.

But I'm not sure how to confirm if that's the case, and if so, what the awards' original names were. The BAFTA website's "Heritage" section contains images of the ceremonies' original brochures from the 1950s to the 1980s. But the only one that shows any interior pages with award names is the first one from 1949; the others only include covers (e.g. the 1950s page). Nick R^Talk 14:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do not delete, open to Redirect/merge. If content has been copied to the other article this needs to be kept for attribution purposes. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No content has been copied from this article. Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nick R states in an edit summary "Incorporating changes that were made while the article was at BAFTA Award for Best Animation. ...". That to me says content was copied. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The articles used different date terminology, so Nick R made the article internally consistent. The other changes were formatting fixes. As far as I can see, there isn't any new content that was copied over which requires copyright attribution:
Pre-split version I restored: [5]

Version with Nick's formatting fixes: [6]

I am not sure I agree with the date fix because it makes the article inconsistent with the BAFTA source: https://www.bafta.org/awards/film/animated-film. However, this is not something that is relevant to the deletion discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick R. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Would editors arguing for a Deletion be open to a Redirection or even a selective Merge? To what target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article relies heavily on primary BAFTA sources but lacks substantial independent academic references that establish its standalone importance.Krishnpriya123 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. (No strong preference.) We don't need separate articles just because the name of the category may have changed — if the function of the category remained consistent, then we just need one article that covers both phases of its history at its current name. Since the same information is already reflected in the existing article anyway (and already was, it just hadn't been converted to table format yet), we don't need this to be forked out just because of a name change. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If anyone wants the content moved to user or draft space, pending finding sources, please let me know. (Alternatively, we could get EEng to retarget the term as being somebody who clings around the discussions at Requests for adminship like a limpet or some other mollusc.) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Mollusc

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

Non notable salvage vessel. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (basically all I get is historicalrfa.uk which even if it met all the criteria for SIGCOV, which I am uncertain on, is only one source). I tagged this for notability a week ago, but the author simply reverted the tag without comment and declined to improve the article any further, leaving me with no choice but AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that an attempt to draftify on March 1 was promptly reverted without comment by the article's author. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am unable to find any sources myself, but I'm hesitant to support deletion just yet because so many navy vessels do turn out to be notable. If anyone can access The Times archives, which I do not have access to, that might be a good place to check. I thought RFA Belgol wasn't notable, but it turned out to have sufficient coverage in The Times and at the Historical RFA website. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 03:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article creator is a new editor. As well as the Historical RFA website used as a reference (from which the article can be expanded greatly), there is also Clydesite. The Times draws a blank this time. Mjroots (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does Historical RFA meet our requirements for a reliable source? I've looked it over and can't find any sort of "about us" beyond two people listed as consultants. A trip to rfaa.uk is more promising, but I'm still not getting a clear sense of who their authors are and if the website counts as a reliable source. Forgive me, I am not shipsandotherthings so I'm not as familiar with sourcing in this area.

If this were a warship, I'd probably have left it in the NPP queue, but a salvage vessel doesn't seem to have automatic notability. Perhaps there's a list article it could be merged to somewhere? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings: - Given the detail of entries consistently across the site, I'd say yes. However, I'm not a MILHIST expert, it just happens that some ships have MILHIST connections. I'll ask over there, see what the experts say. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Having had a look around the usual sources I agree that it is going to be difficult to prove notability for Mollusc. The Historical RFA page is more a list of seaman deaths plus two lines on the salvaging of some items from Falmouth than in depth coverage. Clydeships prove the ship existed but is not much more than a database entry. I think any evidence of notability will come from her later service as Yantlet, especially with mention of this 1667 Dutch warship and the possibility of work during the Second World War. I'm no expert on civil ship service so with have to leave it to others to prove or disprove. Looking at some definitely not reliable sources, it appears Mollusc may have originally been the name ship of the Trinculo-class mooring vessels. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no one but the nominator has actually cast a "vote" here yet. I'd also like to get this discussion a bit more time in case an editor knowledgeable about ships and shipping can propose an ATD. Too bad there isn't a deletion sort for "ships".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I've shown above, sufficient sources exist to enable an article of at least start level to be written. As we all know, that an article needs improvement is never a reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, I'm attacked for daring to participate in NPP and bringing an article I could not find sufficient sources on to AfD. I'm extremely tired of this consistently poor treatment. I've improved many a poor quality article, and even saved several from deletion; I do not need a lecture on the subject, from you or from anyone else. You've identified exactly 1 additional source, which is simply a database with statistics and almost no prose at all, and then gone on a high horse about how it's so evil that anyone dare nominate an article for deletion. Not everyone is an expert in ships, and not everyone has the exact same interpretation of GNG. I did a standard BEFORE search before creating this nomination, as I always do. I don't understand why you have suddenly decided to implicitly accuse me of misconduct when we were having a perfectly civil discussion regarding the article previously. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I repeated my search for sources and still haven't found significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Even assuming historicalrfa checks all the boxes (and its records are not, as it warns, "extremely sketchy"), a second source has yet to be found. I say that because I do not think that clydeships has significant coverage. I don't know if it's reliable, but it does seem indiscriminate. To quote from the website itself: "This web site aims to present the vital information and the careers of all vessels built by the shipyards of Scotland" (emphasis mine). Not all of those tens of thousands of ships are notable enough for their own article, and in my subjective and non-expert opinion, there isn't enough in the RFA Mollusc's remarks section to prove notability. I would be happy to support an ATD if anyone can find one. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 03:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel this may be useful in another page, but not sure where. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Dr. Who and the Daleks. I see a consensus among those familiar with our notability guidelines that this content does not meet our sourcing standards for an independent article. If the merge isn't carried out within one month, feel free to BLAR the page, after which merging will continue from the page's history. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Who & the Daleks: The Official Story of the Films

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

Most of the sources look more like group blogs/fansites and seem to lack proper editorial review. If I am wrong about that and one or more does seem to be an RS feel free to object. Starburst is probably fine. There are unverified and strangely formatted citations to SFX magazine, but from the way they're quoted I cannot be sure if they are reviews or passing mentions. All in all idk if this passes WP:NBOOK PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dr. Who & the Daleks if no further secondary sources are found. I am also not sure about a number of the sources here, but at least Starburst, SFX and Doctor Who Magazine should be fine. Daranios (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah SFX and Doctor Who Magazine are RS, my issue is just I can't verify they contain sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a few more occurrences and added them here, so I think this now meets the notability criteria for an article about a non-fiction book. EditEdward (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz, I have added more inddpdent third acources for this article. Can we clear it of deletion now? EditEdward (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can the deletion tag now be removed please? EditEdward (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a significant amount of sources in this article that are either primary, unreliable, or of unclear reliability. Can you indicate the reliability of "Borg.com", "Pop Culture Squad", "SFF World", "Future of the Force", and "Film Juice"?

Also will note Filmumentaries seems more like a Wikipedia:PRIMARY source than anything. The host seems to be self-published at a glance, but the interview directly with the author may be valuable for developmental information. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. This was based on source assessment and the lack of reliable, independent sources brought to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Involve (think tank)

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

This article is not notable per WP:NORG. I have done a thorough WP:BEFORE to the best of my ability. Andrew Cave does not make the charity notable (WP:INHERITORG).

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Involve Foundation	Self-published, it is primary source.	~ I would think so.	Involve wrote about Involve.	✘ No
Companies House, UK	~ Technically, but are just routine listings.	Government agency. Verified.	Only about Involve.	~ Partial
Friedrich-Elbert-Siftung	Written by independent authors. No affiliation.	Academic paper.	Is only mentioned as a citation. However the concept is the same.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't have enough reliable sources or they are just mentions.Darkm777 (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have been doing my best to learn more, I admit to being quite out of my depth regarding Wikipedia technical conventions, language, etc. so have recused myself from the recent content discussion on the Involve (think-tank) entry. The proposal to delete the Involve entry entirely, however, is a bridge too far, and one I vehemently disagree with. (I strongly suspect that those editors proposing deletion are connected to Involve in some way (or even paid by them?) and simply want to sweep the whole discussion under the carpet.) Think-tanks are a vital part of UK society and this one plays a major role in it. Deleting the entry would be a blatant case of censorship IMHO. Also, the controversy about the Big Tobacco trustee at Involve has apparently resulted in a petition to the UK government petitions service to amend the UK Charities Act so as to close the revolving door between industry lobbyists and charities by introducing a 5-year ban on them taking up trustee posts after leaving their industry position: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/deborah-wa-foulkes_charitygovernance-corruption-bigtobacco-activity-7306164788068306945-dKWb?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAASIBdEB7nQE4xbTkWoM0hmYURwNkITtMeU This petition has acquired the requisite number of preliminary signatures and is now at the checking stage. Once it goes public on the government website people will quite rightly want to inform themselves about the background to it and Wikipedia will have done them a great disservice by deleting the Involve entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chalk giant (talk • contribs) 09:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from accusing a COI or Paid editing with no background. I am sure @Darkm777 would agree. I found the article through random article (alt-shift-x). For the record I have no affiliation with Involve or any comapany/group. "simply want to sweep the whole discussion under the carpet" again, stop accusing editors.

"Think-tanks are a vital part of UK society and this one plays a major role in it. Deleting the entry would be a blatant case of censorship" If you can prove it with references I will withdraw my nom, till then you have no basis that this think tank is notable.

"Also, the controversy about the Big Tobacco trustee at Involve", Please read WP:INHERITORG, the Big Tobacco trustee will not make Involve notable. If you think the petition or the trustee are notable write about them, but the think tank doesn't inherit the notability. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalk giant I would be glad to reconsider my nomination should you produce some better sources. It doesn't matter how important or popular you think this organization is. If they were popular enough they would have more news coverage and qualify. This is the basis of Wikipedia Notability Guidelines. Darkm777 (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plus one. Same sentiment. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I can't delete this as a Soft Deletion as there is an unbolded Keep vote here. We will need to hear from a few more participants. It would be most helpful if you responded to the source analysis or brought up any new sources you have located.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The best coverage I could find was three sentences in this source (pages 160-161), which isn't really significant. Searching for SIGCOV is difficult because of the generic name, and the fact that a lot of sources merely cite one of Involve's publications without covering Involve. My search wasn't exhaustive, but I do not think SIGCOV is likely to exist. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Work from dedicated Wikipedians demonstrates sourcing to satisfy NACTOR (aka WP:HEY). Goldsztajn (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Waterworth

AfDs for this article:

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

I've declined a speedy deletion request on this—voicing the titular character in a major TV series is obviously a credible claim of significance—but sourcing this meagre is clearly not appropriate in a BLP. ‑ Iridescent 17:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. ‑ Iridescent 17:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She is apparently a BAFTA-nominated individual and has written a book [7]. That source doesn't help notability, but at least confirms these facts. The BAFTA nomination would suggest notability, but I don't have enough coverage found to !vote at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She's voiced named characters in notable productions, but I can't find much out there as far as sourcing goes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She was nominated for a British Academy Children's Award in the Performer category in 2019 for her role in Horrid Henry [8], and has also voiced named characters in the two other series mentioned in the article, plus 20 of 35 episodes of The Sandman (podcast) and all episodes of Tinpo (as well as named characters in other series that don't have WP articles like an animated version of Isadora Moon, 50 episodes of Mush-Mush and the Mushables and 35 episodes of Marcus Level. That would see her meet WP:NACTOR, but I have so far found very little independent sourcing, even to confirm her roles. I'll see if I can find more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 19:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eagerly awaiting the results of research. Appears to be notable based on the above discussion. Bearian (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:NACTOR#1, with significant roles in multiple notable TV shows. I have added reliable sources (per WP:RSP) to verify her roles, and the BAFTA website verifies that she was nominated for Best Performer in 2019. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I agree with RebeccaGreen that the subject meets notability for WP:NACTOR#1 and interestingly most of the independent WP:RS coverage is for her 2023 book "How To Talk So People Will Listen" which also discusses her voice acting roles. Nnev66 (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY thanks to RebeccaGreen; the article now has sources verifying she was nominated for the British Academy Children's Awards for the popular Horrid Henry TV series. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Upon review of sources and arguments, it seems clear that she passes WP:NACTOR#1 for her role as the voice of the lead character of a long-running and notable television show. I see no reason to treat voice actors as different from any other kind of actor. The last discussion was flawed in not addressing WP:NACTOR; most of the objections appeared to be lack of any sourcing the article and not whether sources existed or whether an SNG applied. Regardless, that deletion discussion is now nearly a decade old and should not hold as much weight when reviewing the article anew as it would if the deletion discussion had happened a year ago. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Royce Cronin

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

Completely unreferenced article about an actor. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party media coverage about them and their performances -- but this cites no references at all, and is written in a semi-advertorialized tone that's not complying with WP:NPOV.
As he's a British actor whose strongest claims to potentially passing NACTOR are television roles from 20 years ago, I'm willing to withdraw this if a British editor with better access to archived UK media coverage from the noughts can find enough GNG-worthy sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any referencing. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, England, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG, NACTOR and SIGCOV. Also contains WP:SELFPROMO, as at least one, probably both, of the IP edits is/are by the subject himself. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found nothing in my search that'd contribute towards GNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete have yet to find independent RS referencing the subject in detail asides from brief mentions of his roles from what I have found so far.Villkomoses (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in 24Seven, Family Affairs and more recently on stage in The Band Back Together, a stage play by Barney Norris which does not yet have a WP article, but has reviews from The Guardian, The Times and The Spectator, which I have added to this article, and is thus clearly notable. He has also had other stage roles, including in a well-reviewed production of Bouncers by John Godber (which also should have a WP article). RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NACTOR - Had two regular roles on main channels in the UK. I have expanded the article slightly. Thank you for explaining RebeccaGreen - I was able to find sources for the works you talked about using the newspaper archive. Perhaps this just needs extra research, a lot of his career was in the 1990s and early 2000s and the link rot obviously means we lost sources for his early roles. I have sourced some early role info using archives.Rain the 1 21:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would request that this stays open longer since the original rationale and subsequent support for deletion is based on an unsourced version of this article [9] - I have sourced more of the actor's early life and career beginnings since my previous comment. Also pinging @Alexeyevitch:@DerbyCountyinNZ:@Villkomoses:@Traumnovelle:@Bearcat: - should I continue trying to expand it?Rain the 1 22:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by RebeccaGreen and the improvement (WP:HEY) done by RainTheOne. The subject is clearly notable and meets NACTOR. There are also multiple newspaper sources discussing the actor that I can email. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The version nominated for deletion was completely unsourced, and I think the work done since to improve the article means Cronin meets WP:NACTOR. - JuneGloom07 Talk 04:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. In particular, there are now three reviews of his work in the Band play. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added some more content since there has been additional support for the article to be kept. Additional theatre roles including coverage in The Guardian.Rain the 1 01:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:HEY and rationale of RebeccaGreen. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The article saw some improvement during the three-week course of this AfD, but it isn't clear whether the concerns raised by the nom were addressed. I see no consensus that the topic itself is non-notable. Editors are encouraged to remove any unverifiable/WP:OR content, even if this whittles the article down to a stub. Owen× ☎ 07:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity Model of British Ancestry

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

There is no such thing as the "Continuity Model of British Ancestry", and the old sources being united under this heading are about different things, and are handled in various other WP articles. This new article fails in terms of WP:NOTE, WP:OR, and WP:V. There has been discussion already on the talk page, and no convincing source has been forthcoming.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is about a school of thought that was once dominant in British genetics as late as 15 years ago, which will mean that the subject is notable. which if included in other articles would give undue weight to the now largely abandoned idea that the British gene pool is substantially unaffected by subsequent invaders, because Wikipedia was being substantially written then. There was at two major TV series devoted to this, Francis Pryor's Britain AD and Britain BC, while you had some best sellers (as well as the accompanying books from Francis Pryor, they also included Blood of the Isles and The Origins of the British) which propounded a theory that was dominant in academia before more genetic testing of ancient DNA became practical. Some quotes that illustrate the thinking from that time:

"The gene pool of the island has changed, but more slowly and far less completely than implied by the old 'invasion model', and the notion of large-scale migrations, once the key explanation for change in early Britain, has been widely discredited." Dr Simon James - BBC article
"All these marker systems indicate a deep-shared ancestry in the Atlantic zone, dating at least in part to the end of the Ice Age" - Genetics and the Origins of the British Population - in the Wiley Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (accesible with Wikimedia)
"But geneticists who have tested DNA throughout the British Isles are edging toward a different conclusion. Many are struck by the overall genetic similarities, leading some to claim that both Britain and Ireland have been inhabited for thousands of years by a single people that have remained in the majority, with only minor additions from later invaders like Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Normans." Nicholas Wade
"The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands." - Prospect article by Stephen Oppenheimer, a major populariser of the argument
"This idea of a ‘Beaker Folk’ became unpopular after the 1960s as scepticism grew about the role of migration in mediating change in archaeological cultures" - The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe *"During the 1960s scepticism began to grow about the primacy of migration as a vector of social change in prehistory." The return of the Beaker Folk? Rethinking migration and population change in British prehistory academic paper that severely challenged the school
"By that time, many scholars favoured a model of elite dominance involving small, mobile warbands and the acculturation of the local British population" The Anglo-Saxon migration and the formation of the early English gene pool - Later article that severely challenged this school

I intend to add others as this debate goes on. JASpencer (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JASpencer: As discussed on the article talk page, what you are listing are at best different arguments (I think doubts would be a better term) against different possible migrations, in different periods of history and prehistory. They are simply not united by any "model" or "school" or "theory" or "movement". (To pre-empt another possible argument, they are also not united by being the results of genetic research. Doubts about the extreme "migrationism" of the late 19th and early 20th century, were, as you show yourself, common long before genetic evidence became available. Indeed your genetic-oriented sources are from the period before meaningful genetic evidence was available.) There are also other articles for every valid point that can be discussed about the sources you are uniting. Also, as discussed concerning recent articles you tried to create, putting everything else aside it wouldn't make any sense to make separate articles for models (for example the Germanicist extreme "migrationism") and diverse critics of those models [10][11].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but edit down, or merge. I cut out an entirely unsourced piece. If nobody objects, I'll do more editing down to a more manageable size, in the next 48 hours. Bearian (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what is your source for the existence of the "Continuity Model of British Ancestry"? We should not have an article about something which does not exist, surely? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as an objection. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is an honest question, and has nothing to do with your editing proposal. If there is a source, then maybe I should change my own opinion, which is that the article should be deleted (although there would still be major overlap concerns). Concerning editing the article, the whole idea seems a bit surreal unless we can define some notable topic which this article is about? Right now it is essentially a collection of snippets about different topics which are covered in other articles. Not only is there already an article about the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, but even an extra article about the history of debates about it, made recently by the same editor who recently made this one Historiography of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. In the same series of events we also had two more articles created for BOTH sides of the specific continuity migration this article about [12][13]. These now redirect to Migrationism and diffusionism. We also have [[14]]. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes editing would help, thank you for your interest. JASpencer (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a source for the term 'continuity model' as it relates to Britain, fwiw. Tewdar 09:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've added this as a reference. For those who don't have access to Wikipedia library the quote is "This approach could be described as the ‘continuity model’ and it remains extremely important in post-processual considerations of the transition period. Lots of other references there to chase down. JASpencer (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We really need more educated opinions on this article so I'll try another relisting to see if we can arrive at some consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collective (organisation)

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

Insufficient third-party coverage i.e. not meeting notability requirements. The page has four third-party sources. Of these, one only mentions Collective a single time in passing, another is an opinion piece (see WP:RSOPINION) and another is the World Socialist Web Site, of which there is no consensus regarding its reliability. The other is a Greek source with unknown reliability and unlisted status on WP:RSPS. Helper201 (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting a wildly different subject from the title and the nomination. Nonetheless, I had a look around. The first stop is all of what has been taken out of the article since its creation. It seems that editors have been wielding the sword of verifiability well. The sources originally cited were either entirely speculative things from 2024 that made zero factual claims, or sources about a different political party, currently with one person (they say) where those sources seem to have obtained their information about this political party from that one person, who claims that xe is being supported by some unspecified entity named this. The Greek source is based entirely in turn upon these speculative sources, and looking at the purported WWW page of this purported organization and assuming that what it reads on the WWW is true.
But it gets worse than the false sourcing. As one editor observed, the original article had a fake address for this supposed organization. (It turns out that Progressive House is not any building in London that I can find, but rather progressive house.) I also observe that there were hyperbolic claims to membership figures unsupported by any source and assertions of facts not stated anywhere, not even on the dubious WWW page.
There are a couple of unreliable personal WWW sites to be found, but ironically the thing to observe about them is that they talk of a shadowy organization, that they found was incorrectly registered at Companies House, taking their money and then saying that they are not to be let into "secret" meetings, and of Jeremy Corbyn denying being involved in new political parties at all in a TV interview. (Just for fun, I looked up the Companies House listing. The corporate address is a place that rents out office rooms by the day. So the personal WWW sites seem to have a point.)
I'm half suspecting at this point that this is a wholesale con and that a Wikipedia article is part of it. We can do something about the latter, at least. It is unverifiable from any source, reliable or no, that this is a real thing at all. And the unreliable sources want to know where all this supposed money is going.
Delete. Uncle G (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too new to have had much coverage. I can only find coverage about different collectives, nothing about this outfit. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has gotten decent coverage: [15] [16] [17] [18] TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The Canary is listed on WP:RSP as unreliable, while there is no consensus regarding the reliability of the other sources. Helper201 (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it has not. Every single one of those, including the one of already mentioned problematic reliability, is reporting-on-reporting, sourced back to the original reporting that contains, as I wrote above, no actual factual claims in the first place. There's actually a later one from the same newspaper cited in the article. It's entirely "would" and "might" and lots of questions. And the earlier one is "hoped" and future tense. It is a lot of journalistic cop-outs. Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Please look again, The Canary is listed on WP:RSP. Helper201 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per my reasoning at the top of the page. Helper201 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Helper201: Your nomination is treated as a delete !vote, a relisting does not require a second !vote. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Others

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

England

Jenny Taylor

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Macdonald (scientist)

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

Fails WP:SIRS and so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Pictorial

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:NFILM / WP:GNG. No obvious WP:ATD. No sources. Boleyn (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Suggestibles

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

A comedy group that improvises musicals. It's an uncited biography of living people, which failed speedy in 2007 for lack of independent reliable sources, so I'm going through this process. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Theatre, and United Kingdom. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like they still exist according to their website[19] but the only coverage they've received is an interview on a local website in 2019[20]. Unless better sources can be found, they don't meet wp:gng. Orange sticker (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MILL improv group with very little press coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: limited amount of mentions in Gnews above, but sourcing is lacking. We simply don't have enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of hits with sustained secondary coverage available via Proquest, including bylined article in a national newspaper stating this group is one of the "hottest comedy tickets in the north-east". See for example: Guardian, 2007, Evening Chronicle 2004, Journal 2010, Northern Echo 2011. ResonantDis_tortion 09:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, can you drop a couple of more things we can draw from these articles. I still figuring out the best way to find sources for free, and your source isn't free showing me only a preview :). The only things I got are: "Newcastle-based" and one source says they are in-demand. LastJabberwocky (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Hi @LastJabberwocky You can get free access to a variety of databases, including Proquest, via the Wikipedia Library. You need 500 edits and to have had an account for 6 months: Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library. As well as Proquest it also includes access to the Gale database, which also has hits for the subject, such as this one providing bylined commentary on the popularity of the subject's performances. ResonantDis_tortion 11:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added several of these sources to the article, so it is no longer unreferenced. This includes a further sigcov article, archived here. Article still needs work. ResonantDis_tortion 15:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for spending your time on a random article! Do you think the cited sentences would be enough for a servable article; and delete the rest. I assume you scanned all the internet and nothing else would be cited if you will not cite it :). LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I did a minimum level of analysis to ensure the article is no longer uncited. Please make no further assumptions. For the record, there are so many hits on proquest, ranging from bylined coverage to pure listings, that it's a non-trivial job to trawl through and work out what text can and can't be cited. ResonantDis_tortion 18:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even with new sources provided, which were human interest stories about local artists, these two improv performers still do not meet notability guidelines, certainly not WP:ENT, making "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue (band)

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

English band. The usual things about lack of sources. The first link is broken (thehornstalbans.co.uk). Marked for lack of notability since 2011. LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, no sources anywhere ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication found the subject meets any aspect of WP:MUSICBIO. ResonantDis_tortion 22:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Wilton

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In response to the recent PROD nomination, I had a look at the sources. It seems quite possible that the name "Richardus de Wilton" or suchlike was an artefact, suggested by some misunderstood manuscript material. So I was happy to see the PROD stand. I deprecate the further business of bringing the matter up at AfD. There may be some less obvious source that validates Wilton, and there is no need to make the deletion emphatic. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Philosophy, History, and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in the Wye Valley

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

Fails WP:NLIST, completely uncited (which in itself isn't a reason for deletion, but NLIST makes up for that). E_F⁵ 14:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, England, and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Feel it would be better to convert into a navbox. /over.throws/^✎ 15:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intec Digital

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

Although I'm on the fence, I don't think this organization meets GNG. Of the four sources listed, two are unreliable (i.e., Facebook and Discogs) and one lacks SIGCOV (i.e., DJ Mag). I found an interview in Vice [21] with a paragraph about the company, as well as post at EDM House Network [22], though that could be a press release. Further, this article has been tagged for notability concerns since 2017 with few efforts at improvement. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carl Cox. The nomination doesn't give a particularly good sense that this should have been sent to AfD; the nominator isn't strongly in favor of deletion and doesn't mention WP:MUSIC despite this being a music-related topic (it's only referred to as a company, rather than a record label). Many, many AfDs of record labels are label imprints of notable musical artists, and this one is no exception; I'm not sure that there's sufficient reason for a standalone article here, but mentioning it in connection with Cox's other artistic output makes sense. In general, these should be proposed as merges rather than sent to AfD; there's no reason to have a redlink here. Chubbles (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melendez Films

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

lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the article primarily relies on self-published or promotional sources and does not demonstrate a lasting impact, it would not meet Wikipedia’s verifiability and neutrality standards. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Comics and animation, England, Mexico, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bill Melendez. The article can very well be merged into Bill's page since the company was his. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jamjarcars

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

lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the article primarily relies on self-published sources or promotional content, it would violate Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability standards. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, There is nothing notable about this brand, fails WP:SIGCOV, Non notable brand Best Regards (CP) 08:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Websites, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed. I can see some passing mentions in trade journals, but no significant coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment searching for jamjar.com may be (slightly) more fruitful. The company was (one of ?) the first online car sales platforms in the (UK|world). 25 years on and most of that online history is lost. The mass of television advertising that was pervasive around the turn of the millennium has vanished. The notability of the first iteration of the business was not maintained by any of the later iterations. Cabayi (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even on YT I could only find youtu . be / UtjJzeO3KVs - Cabayi (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with NatWest Group: they've owned part of the business, could be a brief section under the main business' article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of SIGCOV, kind of on the fence with SIGCOV, since a lot of the coverage from the new millennium has disappeared. There is a possible COI and PROMO issue however. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaplan Law School

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

Article about a defunct for-profit UK legal training centre lacking reliable, third party sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Primarily a puff piece designed to promote the (now non-existent) organization. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as a section of Nottingham Law School, for which it provided some services, and with which its degrees were affiliated. BD2412 T 18:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per BD2412. Flip^and Flopped ツ 01:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nicholas

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

After reviewing the article it came to my attention that the person this article is about does not meet the notability criteria for creative professionals since:

- There is no readily available evidence to suggest that Anna Nicholas is widely cited by her peers or successors, or that she is considered an "important figure" within the broader literary community.

- It is unlikely that Anna Nicholas has originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique within the literary field. Her work, while potentially popular, does not appear to have revolutionized or significantly altered literary practices.

-While Anna Nicholas has published books, it is questionable whether these works have been the "primary subject" of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" that meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. Simply having reviews or mentions is insufficient; the reviews must be substantial and from reputable sources. It must be demonstrated that the books have had a significant cultural impact.

- There is no evidence to suggest that Anna Nicholas's works have achieved any of these criteria. Her books do not appear to have become "significant monuments," been part of significant exhibitions, received exceptional critical attention, or been included in notable gallery or museum collections. Fatimald (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and United Kingdom. Fatimald (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interestingly there is a recent review of one of her books in the Telegraph[23] but also two recent bylines[24][25] so this cannot be considered an independent source. Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR and article is largely unchanged from the one she herself originally created 17 years ago. Orange sticker (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Travel and tourism, Spain, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find the Telegraph review used in the article, not enough to meet AUTHOR. With one or two more book reviews we should have AUTHOR notability, but I don't see any. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bentley

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

Article on CEO of an aviation services company which reads like a resume. References are links to his company website, collated company info by cbinsights, an industry paper about his company completing a training session, and a document by the FAA - none of which are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Page has already been PRODd in the past. Spacepine (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable business person. Orange sticker (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ferrer

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

Non-notable person. Doesn't meet WP:GNG because none of the sources discuss him as a person, but simply mention his job title and/or are articles writrten by him. The man himself has not received significant coverage. Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. Doesn't meat WP:ANYBIO. Amisom (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Judaism, England, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find any significant discussion about the subject in all of the references. Those passing mentions are not enough to pass for WP:ANYBIO. Mekomo (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Foster

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

No sign of notability, search returns nothing. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Radio, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Have added two references but the article still needs additional references.

Lewis Alexander

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

Hijacked redirect. Current subject does not meet WP:GNG. If kept, should be moved to Lewis Alexander (actor) and the redirect turned into a dab. But I can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are people less notable than him who have articles. So, I don't see why it should be deleted and I don't think it needs to be moved since the name isn't taken by someone else. Spectritus (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We discuss articles and if they should be included according to Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. Your reply is unrelated to any of those, so please consider making a policy-based argument. Geschichte (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an extra who does not seem to have ever been credited, cannot find anything about his career or even an obituary, therefore does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Orange sticker (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any solid sources that actually talk about Lewis Alexander as a person or actor. Right now, this looks more like a name on a list than a subject with encyclopedic value. Pridemanty (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
restore redirect to Lewis Grandison Alexander. The actor is non notable, but the poet probably is. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does appearing in major productions not make him notable? Also, there are people less notable than him who have an article. Spectritus (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bilton

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

Article was created by a sockpuppet account named "Novonium", since blocked indefinitely, in 2012. The article appears to have a pretty rich editing history by socks, also since blocked, in the years following its creation. There is a strong WP:DENY argument to be made alone for deleting this article.

Additionally, most of the sources mention Nick Bilton in passing or refer to works of his but are not about the man himself. Therefore, though articles about some of Bilton's work might be notable, the subject matter BLP, Bilton, is himself not notable and the article should be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, England, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some reviews of his books [26], [27], an article in Variety [28]. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Source 10 is also a book review, this would likely pass AUTHOR with at least three book reviews in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the WP:DENY rationale for deletion? I think it is likely that this person paid to have their article created, or did it themselves with a sock account. Either way, it has a rich history of editing by blocked sock accounts. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:DIRECTOR/WP:CREATIVE as director/writer of a notable film, at least. -Mushy Yank. 18:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the criteria from those qualifies here? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...#3, most evidently. Bilton’s Fake Famous has received a lot of critical attention. Just check. WP: AUTHOR also applies. He is a very clearly notable writer and filmmaker. -Mushy Yank. 08:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts on WP:DENY given the rich history of editing by socks and the fact that this article was created by a sock itself? I say delete and it could maybe then be recreated separately on that basis alone. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

House of Fine Art

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

Was deleted back 2018, with a "The" in the title, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The House of Fine Art. Justlettersandnumbers's rationale from back then still holds. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Museums and libraries, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, placing "The" in front of the article name does not suddenly make an article notable. It was not notable when deleted in 2018, and remains so today after a google search. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's nice of Onel5969 to draw attention to my nomination of this for deletion in 2018 (thank you, 1L!). However, what stands out in that discussion is not my small contribution but the clear understanding of policy shown by two editors, Jytdog and NitinMlk. I encourage those who plan to contribute to this discussion to read through the previous one first. The new article seems to be a borderline WP:G4 candidate, by the way, but probably best to let this run now that it has started. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a speedy delete per WP:G4 would make sense, but I think it is looking like it will be deleted anyway if the current trend on this AfD holds. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. It seems this gallery was not notable in 2018 and is still not notable. The sources consist of a short Forbes contributor PR piece on the gallery; the KIAF Seoul pieces is a modified press release; ArtNet is a subscription service for galleries and their listings, their "reviews" are not the same as serious art magazines and besides, it's a dead 404 link; The first Financial Times source is an article about NFT's with a mention of HOFA in one sentence, it is not an article about the gallery; the second FT source is about the artists, not about the gallery itself. Netherzone (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't read the FT refs, don't have a subscription; I've removed artnet as a perennial non-WP:RS. The other three refs do not begin to show notability as expected for WP:NCORP: I see nothing to suggest that vipnews.gr is reliable (no imprint/about us/other indication of editorial control); the Forbes ref is a lifestyle blog post; and the KIAF Seoul ref is a press-release, which presumably they're hosting because the gallery had a booth there in 2022. I'm really curious about the assertion that it was "one of the first art galleries to offer its collection in the form of cryptocurrency", cited to the Alan Knox Financial Times ref: how exactly did that work? – you bought a painting or sculpture, and got given a bit of bitcoin instead? I seriously doubt that the FT says anything of the sort, but – as before – can't access it to be sure. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Justlettersandnumbers, I'm also not sure how NFTs and bitcoin work in tandem in the art world, but the Financial Times article only says this about the gallery: “Viale really resonates with the millennial generation,” says Elio D’Anna, co-founder of Artcels, the online art investment platform behind the exhibition at Hofa Gallery. (After exhibiting in London in the spring “Kouros” travelled to the Greek island of Mykonos for another show.) Also at Hofa were a glossed-porcelain Jeff Koons “Balloon Rabbit”, a Yoshitomo Nara woodcut and relief prints by the cult African-American artist Nina Chanel Abney, along with a couple of works by Banksy — signed screen prints of “Girl with Balloon” and “Grin Reaper”. which is not about HOFA gallery itself, but about the artists and the cofounder of of an "online investment platform". It is just a name check for the gallery, not sigcov. Netherzone (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret T. May

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

Tagged as questionable in notability and sourcing since 2017. I have seen nothing that suggests that this subject meets WP:NPROF. BD2412 T 03:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. BD2412 T 03:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject has a SCOPUS profile here which indicates c. 16,000 citations, and Web of Science indicates c. 10,000 citations. ResonantDis_tortion 12:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @ResonantDistortion: I would note, though, that subject is on a lot of papers where she is named as one of a half-dozen or more co-authors, for which she almost never appears as the lead author. I am basing this off of what I can see from Google Scholar. BD2412 T 15:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nnev66 (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC) ~~Comment~~ I'm leaning Keep as subject has a high D-index (H-index) of 81 so passes WP:NACADEMIC#1. She is the corresponding author on a Lancet article with 1,496 citations, 2nd author on another with 1,437 citations and 1014 citations. From Google Scholar I can see that she does have a number of high citation count first author papers 149 citations, 757 citations, 494 citations, 297 citations (I didn't go through everything). Perhaps HIV papers get higher citation counts but nonetheless she appears to have done important work from glancing at the studies. That being said the article has barely any content and would need an overhaul. I'd be willing to do it if there's consensus that she meets WP:NACADEMIC#1 but I'll need a few weeks to do it. Nnev66 (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following up my initial comment, if she did the modeling for all these studies it would make sense that she'd have a high citation count, with caveat without much effort I easily found articles where she had a high author position on the paper. She was not a chaired professor and I don't see any awards. I can't find anything about her other than what's on the University of Bristol web site archive links in the article. I'll await further input from the community about meeting notability with NACAD criteria #1. Nnev66 (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When a statistician such as May appears in a non-leading author position in a well-cited science paper, one might assume that she was brought in to crunch the numbers on a project someone else designed and ran, and is not the main person to credit for its success; I don't think those sorts of works count much towards WP:PROF#C1. But when she is first author, it is much more likely to be primarily her work and more statistical in nature. In Google Scholar among first-author papers I see
- 756 for "Impact on life expectancy of HIV-1 positive individuals"
- 494 for "Impact of late diagnosis and treatment on life expectancy"
- 297 for "Does psychological distress predict the risk of ischemic stroke"
- 276 for "Prognosis of patients with HIV-1 infection starting antiretroviral therapy"
- 149 for "Life expectancy of HIV-positive adults: a review",
- 106 for "Cohort profile: antiretroviral therapy cohort collaboration"

etc. To me that's enough to make a case for #C1 (especially factoring in the natural reduction in citation counts resulting from heavily filtering the publications in this way, compared to just looking at someone's top-cited publications). I suspect she has retired recently because she has published as recently as 2023 but I couldn't find a current listing for her at Bristol. I did verify that she was promoted to full professor in 2015 [29]. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Prof#C1. I'm not a fan of the obsession with citation numbers in real life or here in Wikipedia, but it's a strong consensus. Bearian (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Nnev66. Subject meets WP:NACADEMIC#1. RolandSimon (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on clear pass of wP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Cold in the Earth

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

Book that fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not exactly very notable, but there is two reviews, which should be enough for NBOOK. Review in Publishers Weekly (here) and Brazosport Facts (here). Also seems to be a review in Booklist (Gale A77135100), but it's just a sentence, and the rest is other books. Also possibly one in The Armchair Detective Volume 27, but I can't find a copy online. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A good alternative might be for us to make a series page and have the individual entries redirect there. I'm a big fan of having series pages as opposed to individual book entries unless the books are exceptionally notable, like Twilight or ASOIAF/AGOT. If I have time, I'll try to make a page for this, but if anyone else wants to tackle this, feel free. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Pelmear

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

No evidence of notability found. Played in notable series like Dr Who, but only a minor role. He is just a name appearing in lists of actors, but doesn't get further attention in books[30]. No news sources paid significant attention to his death[31]. General Google results are wiki's and fora, no indepth reliable sources there either[32]. Fram (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are people less notable than him who have an article. So, I don't see why this article should be deleted. And besides, it can be improved over time. Spectritus (talk) 9:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Fram (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His role in The Time Warrior is significant, not minor. Merge into a not-yet existing cast section of that serial. Thanks. (https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-guide/the-time-warrior/) -Mushy Yank. 19:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He played in 4 of the 26 episodes of one season of this long-running series. It's a significant role in that one story arc, it is a minor role in Doctor Who. Fram (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sure, it's also less important in the universal history of fiction than Rhett Butler and Darth Vader, which in turn are less important than Odyssseus and Don Quixote, etc, but that's not really the point.... It's a significant [not minor] role in a notable production and that's why I suggest to Redirect the page there. If other significant ro|es in notable productions are identified, the Redirect can be undone and the page expanded back into a proper article. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 19:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As I said before, there are people less notable than him who have an article. So, there's no reason to delete this one. Spectritus (talk) 8:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment He also appeared in many roles on stage. I'll try to add info about that, and sources from digitised newspapers. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much appreciated. Spectritus (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Bacon

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

I created this article at the request of the Women in Red project. User:Billsmith60 doesn’t think she is notable but their own WP:AFD submission was incorrectly formatted so I am bringing it here myself for the community to decide. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Architecture. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lead architect on several notable projects and clearly of high standing in her profession. PamD 07:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (as per my comments on article Talk page; I am grateful to user:Theroadislong for their assistance in reopening my proposal): this looks like a clear candidate for deletion. Being nominated for a professional award does not make someone notable. All sources cited are from professional journals or merely Companies House regarding her business interests. She is known only within that professional sector (architecture). Notwithstanding improvements to address the lack of articles on women, Wikipedia rules have to be adhered to: if this article stays, every British managing partner in a business will want one Billsmith60 (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing is sourced to Companies House and she seems to easily pass WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable, sources independent of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate and full name were sourced to CH. I found an alternative source for her name whi h does not include birthdate, now removed. PamD 17:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Art Arena

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

This article about a "planned" museum has been around since 2010. While I'm not sure what the status of the museum is the only live source I could find about it was on the Roland Collection website. I don't see how this meets the WP:GNG in any way. Yeshivish613 (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and England. Yeshivish613 (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, a "planned" museum that never appears to have happened, almost 20 yrs ago. PROMO gone bad, delete this. I see no current (or any) links to this project. Oaktree b (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems this article was created as advance-promo for a museum that never was built. I'm not finding anything to support its notability. The one recent "source" in Ahmedabad Mirror written by "Agency" seems like more PR promo for the person who proposed the unbuilt museum; mentioning the "museum" in a single sentence. It's a very buggy/spammy site, rife with pop-up windows for various products and medical "cures". It is not significant coverage and seems unreliable. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's certainly possible for a planned museum to achieve notability, but I cannot identify ORG level coverage, nor a suitable ATD. Star Mississippi 01:41, 9 April 2025 (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. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Le Mare

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

Notability ash (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. ash (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've proposed this for deletion as it doesn't appear to establish more than a passing notability. The only two facts about her are that she is the co-founder of an organisation and a magazine. The stub hasn't been expanded in the last 15 years. Also, only one page appears to link to this page. Suggest a Wikidata page would be sufficient. Alternatively, the stub could be added to the page for the Society.

ash (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: the Malayan Nature Journal pops up in Gscholar where this person is mentioned [33] as the editor. This [34] and [[35]] are both by the same author but appear to show notabililty. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Might meet notability as the editor of the Malayan Nature Journal, PROF, but I don't remember which point it is exacly (C3?) Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editorship is C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Malaysia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Animal, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the information found by User:Oaktree b, her two early publications (writing as Gladys Keay) on mites were cited by others in the scientific literature. I have added those citations. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Double-digit numbers of citations are generally insufficient to make a case for WP:PROF#C1 notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think this contributes to notability, particularly since those papers were written in a time when citation counts were lower. In my mind, the points raised by Oaktree b are the best discussion notes for a keep argument. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep meets WP:NPROF#C8, especially given the time when she lived. Nnev66 (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the comments above. Bduke (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: co-founder of society, notable contributions to entomology. PamD 07:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per arguments of Nnev66 and PamD: for a female scientist from the 1940s and 1950s the notability and sourcing is sufficient. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as meeting WP:NPROF#C8. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added some more sources and biographical info. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there is enough there to justify an article. Blackballnz (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Prospect Trust

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a three-school multi-academy trust. I do not see significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and don't therefore think it meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. If I had found any non-primary significant coverage, I'd add something about it to Sixth Form College, Farnborough, which I think was the first school in the MAT, and redirect there, but as it is I don't think there is enough even for a redirect. Tacyarg (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is literally not a single secondary source about this organization. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Good Witch (album). (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of Man (song)

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:NSONG, as it does not have any significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources and no major charts. Some coverage of the album itself, but not enough on the song. Propose delete and merge with The Good Witch (album). nf utvol (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, Popular culture, United Kingdom, and England. nf utvol (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to either the album or the artist. Charting on streaming sites isn't considered notable. Rest of the coverage is in non-RS or just confirmation of the streaming charts. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Good Witch (album). ^Wiinter_U 16:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Good Witch (album). MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for sure. It wasn't even released as a single. Brenae wafato (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2025 (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.

Josh Levy

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

This article does not demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Wikipedia evaluates notability primarily through two pathways: the general notability guideline (GNG), which requires significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources with strong editorial oversight, and subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG), which are tailored to specific fields like academics, athletes, or entertainers.

In this case, the article appears to concern a religious figure, not an academic, so WP:NACADEMIC is not applicable. The more relevant SNG is WP:NPERSON, which still requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that are not directly affiliated with the subject.

After reviewing the sources:

CheckCompany provides a minimal corporate profile with no substantial coverage. (Too sparse)
ReformJudaism.org.uk is a primary source from an organization the subject leads. (Not independent)
Jewish News focuses on organizational developments and only briefly mentions Levy. (Wrong subject)
Leo Baeck College profile is uncredited and potentially self-authored. (Unreliable, likely self-published)
JewishGen is about a synagogue building, not Levy himself. (Too sparse, Wrong subject)

These sources fail to provide the significant, in-depth, and independent coverage required for notability under either GNG or NPERSON. Without substantial third-party coverage—particularly from newspapers, religious publications, or similar sources—there is no verifiable basis for inclusion. As it stands, the article should be deleted for lack of notability.

Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete-~~ Reason above Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:AFDLIST - as the nominator recommending deletion, you should not also !vote. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC) (She's right, your nomination is your vote, you can't cast a duplicate one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Keep As the chief executive of the Movement for Reform Judaism and co-leader of the new Progressive Judaism (UK) movement [36], [37], I think he is probably notable per WP:RELPEOPLE. He is not the Chief Rabbi, who is inherently notable, but as co-leader (with Charley Baginsky) of a group that covers 30% [38] of Jewish people affiliated with synagogues in the UK, this is still a subtantial position. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could be better but he is notable as the joint leader of a significant religious movement in the UK.

Rafts of Calm (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two Sevens

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Popular culture, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 09:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John King (author): or to Peter Mason (journalist), mentioned there. And in time, if secondary sources are added, expand back into a page (Redirect with possibilities). -Mushy Yank. 09:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Two different Redirect target articles suggested here. Any more support for either one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckney Hill

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

Cuckney Hill does not meet WP:NGEO guidelines. I can find no significant discussion of it, only mentions of it as a place to drive through and a mention of greenery planted to attract game. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a place to drive along. According to both current maps and old maps like https://maps.nls.uk/view/101602494 (1884) https://maps.nls.uk/view/115390009 (1918) and https://maps.nls.uk/view/189228330 (1955) this is the name of a section of the A60 road, not of a hill. The name is written along the road rather than horizontally. This article seems to be a lie. I couldn't find anything about Metz Lodge or the tree plantations collectively. Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a lie, I think the road goes over the top of Cuckney Hill and was named that after the fact - this suggests the A60 bisects it. I found cites in books including the 1868 Gazetteer of Great Britain, and I'm not sure what to make of this but it cites a map from the 1830s. If the various mentions aren't enough to get to a full article, it should be merged or redirected into Cuckney. SportingFlyer T·C 11:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But cites of it don't meet WP:GNG because they're trivial mentions of it. I haven't been able to find significant, discussion of it in depth, and depictions on maps doesn't confer notability. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A search of the British Newspaper Archive shows that in 1899, Cuckney Hill was described as a "steep declivity"; there have been many fatal accidents there. In the late 1980s, British Coal proposed to extend the Welbeck pit tip to Cuckney Hill - residents protested that it could lead to an Aberfan-type disaster, and said "Until we appointed a geologist, they did not know or accept the existence of the geological junction on the hillside. "They are proposing to put a hill on top of a hill. Cuckney Hill already has a long history of land slippages in wet weather." (Maybe there's a geological report somewhere, about this geological junction.) In 1914, Cuckney Hill was selected as the site of a new cemetery; it was still called Cuckney Hill Cemetery in 1998, when it reached capacity and was extended. The geography of Nottinghamshire names Cuckney Hill as one of the chief points in the range between Worksop and Nottingham, and a 1913 newspaper article called "Mansfield Tours - A Run through the Dukeries - Sherwood's Beauties" says "From the top of Cuckney Hill as fair a view as one might wish to see is spread out before one, and as I dipped down the other side the red-tiled roofs surrounding the ancient church of Cuckney in a delightful setting of green, were prominent in the picture."

I notice that there is a concurrent suggested merge to Church Warsop, which confuses the issue of this AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added sources and information to the article. I believe that it meets WP:GEONATURAL. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after the work done by RebeccaGreen I evaluate this article to sufficiently meet the requirements set by WP:GEONATURAL as she/they mention. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anglais

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

A classic case of a redirect with possibilities being needlessly disambiguated. Yes, this term is French for English, but WP:DAB explicitly states that a disambiguation page is not a foreign language dictionary. Sure, there are historical ties between English and French, but this could be said for any number of pairs of languages; it doesn't warrant foreign language disambiguation for all of them. Should be a redirect to the only thing known by this name in English, as it was originally. — Anonymous 19:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and England. — Anonymous 19:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural close~~. This is not proposed as an article for deletion: the nominator's preferred disposal is to redirect it, and no policy reason to delete is offered. Just redirect it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shhhnotsoloud, already tried, was reverted because it was previously an RfD. Consensus has established that AfD is the correct venue for controversial BLARs. — Anonymous 14:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. In which case, Redirect to Country dance. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A valid DAB, with at least four possibilities and maybe more: the dictionary definition, country dance, creme anglaise and Les Anglais in Haiti. (Note that anglaise redirects to country dance; it should redirect here.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dclemens1971, see WP:DABDICT and WP:PARTIAL. A dictionary definition is a textbook example of what to never put on a DAB page, while creme anglaise and Les Anglais are partial title matches whose subjects are not known as simply "anglais" alone. — Anonymous 14:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are enough of a conceptual match to overcome any concerns in this situation, and re: DABDICT, what I see here as a definition is fully compliant with the guidance on that page that a short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context. "Creme anglaise" is at least as appropriate a navigational result as "country dance" for this word. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Dclemens1971, I don't follow. I'll grant that you could make the argument that a brief definition of the word anglais could not possibly hurt if there were a need for a DAB page to begin with, but providing the definition is not a reason for the existence of said page. Your response also seems to ignore WP:PARTIAL; unless you can provide a source showing where someone refers to "creme anglaise" as simply "anglais(e)" without the extra word, then it will only ever be a partial title match (same with "Les Anglaise"). However, there are sources that refer to the dance as simply "anglais". — Anonymous 16:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is extremely normal in cooking to refer to creme anglaise as just "anglaise" or "the anglaise", as in "Time to make the anglaise." See Dale-Roberts, The Test Kitchen; Foskett, Campbell and Patkins, Practical Cookery: Level 3; the Culinary Institute of America text Baking and Pastry; etc. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nobody calls Crème anglaise "Anglais", and we Brits just call it custard. "Anglais" isn't a plausible search term for "Law French", and as for the English language and people, it has been rightly said above that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary of foreign terms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971 unintentionally makes an argument against one of the supposed ambiguities. Checking, it turns out that those books never say "anglais" for crème anglaise and always say "anglaise".
However: subtract one, add one. "Anglaise" (also "Anglaise tardive") was an old name for the duke cherry, more formally known (after some jumping about the binomials over the years) as Prunus × gondouinii (redlinked at Prunus subg. Cerasus and List of Prunus species). Equally, I cannot find any good quality musical sources that use "anglais", in actual English, for country dance; only "Anglaise" or "Anglois", sometimes italicized, sometimes not. And no-one calls law French "Anglais" or "Anglaise", not least because that would be a complete misnomer. So:
- Anglaise is ambiguous between crème anglaise, the country dance, and Prunus × gondouinii
- This article title, anglais, is not actually used in English for anything listed on the disambiguation, and doesn't have its own plausible redirect target at all except to (ironically) anglaise.
The correct course of action seems to be to rename this to anglaise and make it a three-way disambiguation. It is typical of Wikipedia that we have it exactly backwards after 2 decades. Uncle G (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G Anglaise is just the feminine of anglais; it would be silly to have two separate dab pages for what is the same word in French. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a good thing that I did not say to do that, then. Please read what I actually said that I think to be the correct course of action to take. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uncle G I wasn't saying you said that, I was just pointing out that they are the same word so one dab page will suffice. Often harder to get to a consensus for "move" than for "keep" since a move is an editorial decision, but if it's anglaise instead of anglais, no skin off my nose either way. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Maybe I misunderstood something concerning "editorial decision"? I do see that "harder to get" was used. The lead at Articles for deletion states, Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed from "Delete") Seems like trivia. But may be better to keep since it is geared to disambiguate. Ramos1990 (talk)
~~Redirect~~, I am not sure if the "Delete" !votes are fully reading this discussion? Well, the correct !vote here should be to redirect per " Should be a redirect to the only thing known by this name in English, as it was originally." Agree with editor Shhnotsoloud assessment. Though I have been convinced that a Keep would be acceptable here. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but with just the dance entry, Les Anglais (Haitian commune), Les Anglais (a book by Philippe Daudy), and Charlotte Anglais (List of One Piece characters). Wikipedia is not a French-English dictionary, so English language and English people are out. The introductory sentence translation and the Wiktionary link are quite sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Two Sevens (via WP:PROD on 22 March 2025)

Northern Ireland

Others

Scotland

Jamie Bennett (businessman)

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

I am the subject of the article and do not believe it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Additionally, I have personal and professional concerns regarding the accuracy, relevance, and publication of this content. As a private individual, I kindly ask for your consideration in removing the page. JRFB1 (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be sourced to trade magazines, some primary sourcing. I don't see notability for this individual. I can't find any sourcing we could use either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2025 (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

List of places in the Wye Valley

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

Fails WP:NLIST, completely uncited (which in itself isn't a reason for deletion, but NLIST makes up for that). E_F⁵ 14:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, England, and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Feel it would be better to convert into a navbox. /over.throws/^✎ 15:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Saigal

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

This is a case of Wp:TOOSOON. Just one film as acting career and one ep for that she received some press coverage. Other than that she is daughter of singer and actor parents but notability is not inherited. Fails wp:NACTOR and Wp:NMUSIC as well. Zuck28 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Women, Film, Music, India, Delhi, and Wales. Zuck28 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:FORBES, Forbes is generally considered a reliable source and can see Forbes covering profile for this person in their article here ^[1] Circular Karma (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2024/aditi-saigal-aka-dot-winning-with-words-and-melody/91751/1

Not all individuals featured in Forbes necessarily meet the eligibility threshold for a standalone Wikipedia article.

The subject must first satisfy the notability criteria outlined in Wikipedia's WP:Notability guidelines as a prerequisite for inclusion.

Zuck28 (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not established per WP:NACTOR, WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:GNG. The sourcing consists of standard PR type promo that one would see for any emerging actor with a press agent, including Forbes, which is not significant coverage, it's simply a photo of her with a caption mentioning her name, thus trivial. The Forbes "profile" link above is more standard PR ~~written by "Forbes Staff", (it does not even have a by-line)~~. I agree with the nom that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps in a few more years this emerging actor will become notable, but at this time, one acting role, Spotify "fans" and famous parents is not enough. Netherzone (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a byline and in my view counts as one piece of significant reliable sources coverage. Another reliable bylined piece in the Hindu here, another bylined piece here, leaning Keep for WP:GNG rather than WP:NACTOR imvAtlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One film is not sufficient to pass WP:NACTOR. Need at-least three feature films/web series/TV to comply WP:ACTOR. Forbes 30 Under 30 is paid. Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General comment: Two is enough. Guideline says: "multiple" not "several". -Mushy Yank. 14:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: coverage has her meet WP:GNG. At worst a redirect to The_Archies_(film)#Cast is totally warranted so opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 14:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NACTRESS. RangersRus (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Penystrywad (via WP:PROD on 31 March 2025)
Morgan ap Pasgen (via WP:PROD on 31 March 2025)

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] ttps://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2024/aditi-saigal-aka-dot-winning-with-words-and-melody/91751/1

[1]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 == United Kingdom ==
 <!-- New AFD discussions should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Sopher (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gold_Dust_(magazine)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rick_Yvanovich}}

Revision as of 01:30, 31 March 2025

United Kingdom

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

England

Others

Northern Ireland

Others

Scotland

Others

Wales

Others

zproxy.org