Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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

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

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


United Kingdom[edit]

Radio Jupiter[edit]

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

AFC draft moved to mainspace by author. Sources don't show notability, redirect to Radio Caroline? IgelRM (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. IgelRM (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: I don't think Radio Caroline is the right answer. I think this requires work to show notability, since kt fails WP:NCORP currently. Draft space is a place to work with little pressure 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftify - This article does not speak for itself. It does not explain to a reader why the station is notable, and Wikipedia is written for the readers. This has been a contested draftify, so if this article is draftified here, it may not be moved back to article space except via AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To anyone in 2024, this is a bog-standard Internet oldies station run by who are now older personnel. This is no different from a known commercial radio station keeping an older staff member on Saturday mornings for listener goodwill so they don't get 'Cruel megabroadcaster fires innocent DJ for being too old' headlines. The N for Radio Caroline cannot extend to something that was created well after its existence ended as a nostalgia appeal. Nate • (chatter) 18:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nate - my thoughts exactly. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: PROMO with no coverage in RS. This is a different Radio Jupiter [1], nothing else found. I don't think the redirect as suggested would help. Oaktree b (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, promo piece on a 'radio station' with zero evidence of notability. Do not draftify, as there has been plenty of time for the necessary sources to be gathered, and if nothing has turned up in the past few years, I can't see that suddenly changing in the next few months. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Churney[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage establishing independent notability. It seems that most coverage of the subject is in the context of Ooberman (and to a lesser extent – The Magic Theatre, which is a section of the Ooberman article), a redirect to which would make sense as an alternative to deletion. toweli (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Hill Ponies[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 14:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Chantler[edit]

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

These sources cover the subject only in relation to his death, nothing more, as per my WP:BEFORE. Therefore, the article fails WP:BLP1E, which states, "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

Breakdown of cited sources:

Proposed nuclear bombing of Córdoba[edit]

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

Non-notable conspiracy theory presented as fact. Note that article was translated from the Spanish Wikipedia, which has a long history of propaganda and fabrication in Falklands-related topics. Kahastok talk 16:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, History, Military, United Kingdom, and Argentina. Skynxnex (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having tried to fix this, yes this seems a nothing story, based on dodgy sources, and or. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources. An alleged piece in the New Statesman which is not used as a source. A claim from a Psychoanalyst. A mysterious letter. Certainly extraordinary sources - so extraordinary that they are incredible. Somewhere I read it was a proposed bombing of Buenos Aires, but that's not in Cordoba province. Cobbling together the British admission that some ships sailed with nuclear weapons but surely these are nuclear depth charges not air launched bombs. I suspect it's all pure fantasy but regardless it should be deleted due to lack of reliable sources Lyndaship (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. The 31 nuclear weapons were WE.177 nuclear depth charges. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article as it stands, neutral about whether sources exist for a better one. Sorry for length, I want to be thorough here. This is a mess. A bunch of this is distraction linking. Stuff about nuclear depth charges and the like, that has nothing to do with the core claim: that the British put a Polaris sub with actual nuclear missiles off Ascension Island just in case they decided to nuke Córdoba (the city, not just the province). The 2005 Guardian article can also probably be discarded. It's just reporting on claims from Ali Magoudi's book and there's no reason to give him any weight; for one thing, he claims the British wanted to nuke Buenos Aries, which is a different city entirely. But are there sources such that the core claim -- or, at least, the core theory -- rises to notability? Well, I think this New York Times is just repeating quotes from The New Statesman (the El Pais article currently cited does the same thing, but worse). Full disclosure: I don't have a copy of the original New Statesman article. Regardless, at some point, someone did get Terence Lewin and Henry Leach to call it total nonsense, so that's a cut above most conspiracy theories. This bylined UPI article has a little more context, including that Tam Dalyell made such claims before the New Statesman and that Labour had demanded an independent investigation (which, if it happened, no one reported on; political parties everywhere demand investigations into everything all the time). After all that died down, Paul Rogers revived the allegations. You can read the draft version of Rogers' article here (if you turn your head sideways), but as far as I can tell, the only published version was in Lobster and that's not gonna do as a source. Finally, this white paper from the RAND/UCLA Center for the Study of Soviet International Behavior spends a couple of pages (pp. 9–11) on it all, including the New Statesman article and Rogers's take, eventually concluding that the whole thing is totally implausible and unsupported by evidence. That's pretty thin gruel, but it miiiiight support a brief article outlining the allegation and the conclusion that, no, no one actually told a sub commander to get into position to drop a nuke on Argentina. But I don't think it would be at this name, and I don't think what we've got here is worth trying to salvage into that. Lubal (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article's content is totally wrong-headed, and seems a conspiracy theory type article. As noted in the British official history, a number of nuclear depth charges were on board ships rushed to the South Atlantic for the Falklands War. This was part of their standard armament during the Cold War, and they were removed during the war. This has all long been public, but this article presents it as a great secret. As noted by Lubal the allegations that the British Government separately considered a nuclear attack on mainland Argentina might be worth an article, but would need to be reworked from the ground up. Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probable hoax or fanciful as well as in line with other reasons give above. Donner60 (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just spent my Saturday quickly developing an article what I think is a vastly better article on this topic, which is at British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or turn into redirect to Nick-D's new article. My initial reaction was 'conspiracy theory' as I wasn't familiar with the detail and I'm probably susceptible to arguments (per proposer) that the Spanish Wikipedia is unreliable. However, having read through Nick-D's alternative, I can see there's some substance: a political debate, operational challenges, Cold War propaganda which we can't dismiss. Nick's version is, indeed, vastly better, so let's redirect to that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War#Allegations which deals with this exact subject in a much better way. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FTR I find it difficult to see a case to redirect, because I don't think this is a plausible search term in its own right, and because the article is only six days old so there is unlikely to be any significant issue with link rot. Kahastok talk 09:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Shapiro (journalist)[edit]

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

Journalist falls short of WP:NBIO and WP:GNG tests; no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of him separate from his own writing and coverage of his books. (His book "Turn the Beat Around" would likely pass WP:NBOOK if an article were created on it, but Shapiro's notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from it.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Music. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards keep on the subject of this article. I disagree with the nominators assessment here - particularly as the applicable guideline is WP:AUTHOR, where independent coverage of the author's work is sufficient to evidence notability; WP:INHERITED does not apply. I have found and added several independent citations to the article, including a number of RS book reviews and RS articles stating the importance of the works of Shapiro. As such I !vote to keep this article per WP:AUTHOR#3: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Article could really use expansion however. Per WP:NOPAGE I also recommend a single central article on the author and his works, rather than multiple articles on the books themselves. - I recommend Modulations: A History of Electronic Music is redirected to Shapiro if the result of this AfD is to keep. ResonantDistortion 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate you adding reviews links to the article. I disagree with you on the eligibility for WP:AUTHOR #3. While the author has created a couple of independently notable works, none of the reviews or sources describe the significance of his body of work; they are about individual works. While I agree that Modulations and Turn the Beat Around are notable, I don't think there are any sources to describe them as "significant" nor do any sources discuss them in the context of Shapiro's body of work. Considering that the only available sources are reviews of individual works, the notability should go to the works themselves. Furthermore, the reviews provide virtually no WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, which would leave this article a WP:PERMASTUB without verifiable biographical information. The absence of significant coverage points toward delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is enough coverage to write a non-stub article on Shapiro that is focused on his works. Frankly I find the sourcing on Modulations: A History of Electronic Music to be limited - it struggles to meet notability guidelines and it should be merged and redirected to the parent article Modulations: Cinema for the Ear, as a section in that page. As for WP:AUTHOR#3 - I am struggling to follow the above logic as the guidelines clearly do not require secondary coverage of the works as a body; a single book suffices. In this case we have at minimum one fully notable work and several more works with RS secondary coverage over a WP:SUSTAINED period, and the best place to manage this would be the single article on the author. To support this with an example, His 2005 book, The Rough Guide to Hip-Hop, has reliable sources both recommending it and stating it is important; but this is likely not enough for a standalone article, so the author article is the next best place. (Note - given the age of some of the books - we can very likely presume that offline coverage exists beyond a standard search engine). ResonantDistortion 16:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what I question on criterion 3: is his work "significant and well-known"? I agree the one book meets the standard of "notable," but "significant and well-known" is different, if undefined. I find it difficult to understand how someone's work could be significant and well-known and the author of them remain sufficiently unknown that there are no reliable sources to validate even birth date or country of origin. (Sources disagree about whether Shapiro is American or British.) I'd be OK with a redirect of this page to an article for Turn the Beat Around if one were to be created, but without anything significant coverage I'm defaulting to WP:COMMONSENSE for a situation in which we can't really construct a biography. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we are going to disagree on this one. Given there are a number of reliable sources dedicated to the subjects' other books, but are not sufficiently SIGCOV in and of themselves to create several separate articles for each, the best option (per my version of WP:COMMONSENSE!) would be the other way round: Turn the Beat Around: The Secret History of Disco should redirect to Peter Shapiro (journalist) so we have a single page for all his works. ResonantDistortion 02:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - With the addition of new sources, I don't see any particular concern with notability. Shankargb (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Sudan, London[edit]

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

No useful secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Only sources are a government list of diplomatic missions and a source purportedly about a protest at the embassy more than a decade ago but which appears unrelated. Previously subject of contested PROD and contested merge/redirect. AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the protests aren't mentioned in the main article, there's now something to merge, but the protests were about relations, not buildings. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantically protests can be about buildings (e.g. [3]), but these ones were not. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised the comment, pedantically. Mangoe (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've found the source for the protests and fixed the article, so that information is now verified. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ling[edit]

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

British actor who does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. BEFORE search turns up no additional references whatsoever in reliable sources. Birth and death information come from IMDb, which is WP:USERGENERATED and thus unreliable. Setting aside IMDb, all we know is that he existed and had minor roles in six films. (The BFI database includes references to his name and roles, but no significant coverage.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda Smash Invitational[edit]

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

Non-notable cricket tournament which fails WP:GNG, WP:NCRIC, and WP:EVENT. AA (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Najma Akhtar[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Dowrylauds (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Event Supplier and Services Association[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Akbar[edit]

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

Based on the previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Devil's Thumbprint, I still do not think this passes WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. There is not enough SIGCOV in RSs to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with the nominator. - AlbeitPK (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly notable. Not just as a poet/columnist, but also as a successful cultural producer/entrepreneur whose literary festival is the biggest of its kind in one of the world's largest countries (at least three times bigger than the UK by population). Anglophones may or may not be aware of it, but that is utterly irrelevant to the Bangladesh-based popularity of Dhaka LitFest. --Peripatetic (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete References appear to be not about him, notability not established; unclear why his role in Dhaka LitFest meets notability thresholds. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature of England[edit]

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

This page is nearly entirely covered by the article British literature. Quoting from the lead of that article, "Anglo-Saxon (Old English) literature is included, [in this article] and there is some discussion of Latin and Anglo-Norman literature". The parts not talked about there are under the other articles listed in the main topic hatnotes of each of the proposed article's sections. The only one not mentioned here in British lit is Hebrew literature from England, which as well has its own separate article. Your average reader, when typing "literature of England", is likely looking for the literature of England (covered in the British lit article) that is in English. Based off this, I propose to blank and redirect and merge this article into the aforementioned British literature article. This is done with many other literature country articles, seen in literature of France, which redirects to French literature, and literature of Germany, Spain, etc. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, United Kingdom, and England. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure - briefly my problem with almost all pages of the "literature of x place" is that the subject is impossibly broad and therefore inclusion/exclusion decisions are at the whim of editors. That said there clearly are academics writing about it such as 1 - which itself has a more interesting lede para than the WP page - so by the WP:GNG it appears to have the level of independent scholarly RS for inclusion. I'd like to hear other thoughts to help clarify in my own mind whether (or how) this page could/should be kept. JMWt (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that this is not a deletion (or redirect) proposal for English literature, which entirely covers any content from the article literature of England that may be about literature from England in English. I'm aware plenty of sources exist for English literature in English, as this is why we have the former article, but the proposed article is about literature in England mostly not in English, which, as said above, is covered by either British literature or the other main articles. A possible remedy to this is maybe changing the potential new redirect target of this page from British literature to English literature, although the latter is not exclusive to England itself and is about literature written in English as a whole. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if it is you that are confused or me. As far as I'm concerned
    • English literature refers to literature in the English language
    • Literature of England refers to literature produced in England in any language.
    I do not understand why you keep implying that the Literature of England must necessarily be in the English language nor why we should take your word for that. JMWt (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to imply that, more so that in an article about English literature (meaning any literature written in England) — literature of England — the only content in the article is about literature that is not in English. By saying this I'm not implying that the article should only be about English literature in English, rather that the English literature in English is already fully covered in the articles of English literature and British literature, and as the latter is particular to the British Isles and the former is not as you said, the content from Literature of England (the proposed article) should be either redirected or incorporated into British lit. The British lit article does not have to be about just literature from GB in English, as is already said in the lead of the article. Another alternative would be to make Literature of England a disambig page to show the different articles of various languages of literature from England, although for now I'm staying with my original argument. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, not delete to either British literature or English literature, as appropriate. My understanding is that "English literature" is the literature of England, irrespective of what language it's written in; I presume the same is true of "British literature". Merger is the correct procedure if there's potentially useful material here, even if the contribution is minimal, or it turns out that everything is already included; in that case the article would still become a redirect to one of the relevant articles, but readers checking the article history would see that any relevant content here was reviewed and included in the target article before this became a redirect. The difference between merger and deletion is sometimes subtle, but still important. P Aculeius (talk 13:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original proposal was never to delete the article, as I said in the wording above, it is to blank and redirect the article. There is nothing to merge, and thus blanking and redirecting, (per WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R) is an acceptable means of dealing with sitations such as this, and again per those policies, it is advised that controversial blanks and redirects are discussed on AFD, as I did here, even if the goal is not deletion.
Also, remember that it is best practice to sign your talk page comments by adding four tildes at the end of a message. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking and redirecting is pretty much deletion—and this is "Articles for deletion", not "Articles for discussion". A merge doesn't necessarily involve moving things to other articles, but it ensures that editors know that the whole contents of an article—or anything useful in it—has been covered at the target article. Whether there's useful content isn't determined by whether it's duplicative of something better elsewhere. As I said, the distinction between merger and deletion is sometimes a subtle one, but important: if you just "blank and redirect" without indicating that the article was merged, editors might reasonably infer that no effort was made to ensure that the topic was fully covered at the target article or other appropriate places. And really no significant effort is required on anybody's part to do a merge in an instance where the contents are fully covered, so what's the objection?
Also, remember that any editor likely to comment on procedure probably knows how to sign a comment, and doesn't need an explanation of how to do it. It's easy enough to forget to type four tildes when editing one's own comments. P Aculeius (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I see your point and I mostly agree, though it doesn't really seem right to call it a "merge" when no content is being merged into the new article, and incorporating parts of an existing article into a different one and then redirecting/deleting it is different than simply not incorporating any content and simply blanking and redirecting. We do seem to basically be on the same page though and I'll change the wording for not wanting to argue. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as consensus right now is unclear. If this AFD is closed as a Merge, editors can merge the article's contents to more than one article. But we use XFDcloser to close AFDs and it can only handle listing one target article. So, if that was the closure, would it be to British literature? Also remember that we are only talking about how to close this discussion, if this closure was for a Merge, editors undertaking that merge could chose to use all, some or none of the article content in a merger. It's up to whomever editor volunteers to handle a merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::There seems to be consensus to merge the article into the mentioned British literature article, although in practice I don't see what would actually need to be moved since the article Literature of England is only really about literature from England not in the English language — it consists solely of summaries of the articles Anglo-Latin literature, Anglo-Norman literature, and Early English Jewish literature. Either way, yes, the merge would be to British literature, and as you said, the actual content can be moved to any article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Retracting for now, see below comment. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well I don't agree with that (and to make it clearer I'm now !voting !keep) and at least one other !voter doesn't so I don't think as the nom you should be instructing the closer as to what is or isn't consensus. The fact that the page is unfinished is not a reason to merge or redirect. To reiterate what I said previously, the topic of this page is not the same as for British literature. JMWt (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might, however, be the same as "English Literature", if we include all literature written in England or by English writers, irrespective of the language they wrote in. That's my understanding of the term, since it certainly includes Old English and Middle English writing, and at least in the academic sense does not include English-language literature written elsewhere in the world, or at least not all English-language literature, American Literature being considered a distinct and mostly non-overlapping topic. I note, however, that our article on English Literature expressly states otherwise—there seems to be a debate on the talk page about its scope, but that doesn't concern the issue of non-English literature of England. Actually I'm a little confused about why there aren't more discussions there, seeing as I don't see any archived talk pages...
You're correct in that an article shouldn't be deleted or merged because it's incomplete. The fact that the topic hasn't been significantly changed or expanded since 2016, and remains a brief four paragraphs long, doesn't prove that it has no potential for expansion. However, it does mean that if the subject is or could conveniently be covered as fully as it is here, as part of "English Literature" or another, more comprehensive article, then there is little need for this article to duplicate that coverage, unless and until the topic becomes unwieldy as part of another article, at which time it could be split off and recreated under this or another appropriate title.
The argument for merger isn't an argument that this article has no value or that its subject is invalid: it's that the best way to treat the topic is as part of a broader or more comprehensive treatment that already exists, and the merger process is designed to ensure that nothing useful is lost. The merging editor or editors would be obliged to ensure that the usable contents here are fully covered in other articles before this title becomes a redirect to one of them, and that if necessary hatnotes direct readers from one target to another. P Aculeius (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golf Course News International[edit]

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

Looking through the sources, I'm not finding any evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this apparently defunct publication. Basically all of the coverage of the publication revolves around its disastrous raunchy 2006 rebrand. The only mainstream source I can find covering the publication in any detail is an article in the Independent from 2006 covering the rebrand, along with a very brief article in Press Gazette covering a hiring decision the same year, with other coverage of the rebrand in the niche Golf Business News also in 2006. There's also a 2006 public statement by ex publication head Trevor Ledger in Pitchcare regarding the rebrand. Either way, even if these niche golf sources counted, it still wouldn't pass WP:SUSTAINED due to all the sources being from 2006. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. 674 Squadron AAC[edit]

No. 674 Squadron AAC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient independent references to prove notability. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current yeomanry units of the British Army[edit]

List of current yeomanry units of the British Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The scope of this list is the same as the scope of two sections of Yeomanry. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

88 (Arracan) Battery Royal Artillery[edit]

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

Article contains no references to prove notability and is about a company-sized unit PercyPigUK (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Design Masters series 4[edit]

Interior Design Masters series 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Interior Design Masters. Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Mostly original research. Dan arndt (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Design Masters series 3[edit]

Interior Design Masters series 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Mostly original research. Dan arndt (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteshield[edit]

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

Seems like a reasonably successful consulting company, but that doesn't seem to have translated into any coverage of the company in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Announcements of things they did are good and all, but they're not really the type of content that would meet our criteria for inclusion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The page has a decent media coverage, has a general notability, cooperates with governments of various countries and with international organizations (such as the EBRD and UNESCO) thus responding to WP:GNG. Del Amol Banora (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for spamming. MER-C 17:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep new sources added today are good, so the notability and coverage issues are not so strict. Cooperation with UNESCO, the European Bank for Reconstruction and other global institutions might help add more information and sources. --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for spamming. MER-C 17:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page's sources still do not establish notability sufficiently. The references are from relatively minor sources or primary sources. "cooperating with governments of various countries and international organizations" is not in of itself a consideration for noteworthiness. A paperclip company could be said to "cooperate" with international governmental institutions by selling paperclips to them, but that does not make the paperclip company notable. CapnPhantasm (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: I feel like I should clarify a little bit more. The firm's research has been actively used and publicly praised by UNESCO, with their book listed in the references and their chart included in the article. It's important to note that EBRD and UNESCO official websites shouldn't be considered primary sources or "minor". Additionally, some other media mention that the Whiteshield research was commissioned by the UN and the government of Kazakhstan. They are also mentioned on the official websites of UNIDO and UNDP and are quoted in other UN documents.--Del Amol Banora (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Del Amol Banora. Being cited works for Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and, in some very rare cases, the works themselves. It does not work for companies or organisations, the articles of which we require to be based on the independent analysis of reliable secondary sources. There needs to be stuff written by the UN (or any other source with a reputation for fact checking) in sufficient depth on which to actually base an article, for any of us to, well, actually write a policy compliant article. Any source lacking analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas (of the subject of the article) is, by definition in policy, WP:PRIMARY. Any source that has a relationship other than the "actually writing the article" part of things (including, but not limited to vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees) is generally not going to be considered independent by the applicable guidelines. Those independent, secondary sources are required to go into substantial depth in their analysis, which excludes routine announcements of ordinary business activities. ("routine announcements" being the ones that would accompany such activities most of the time) None of the sources available meet all four of the requirements, and believe me, I had looked quite extensively. (though I do not claim it exhaustive) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apart from the casting votes, the subject seems notable and passes WP:ORGCRIT. MeltPees (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for spamming. MER-C 17:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per GNG, added some additional sources, likely passed ORGCRIT --Assirian cat (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Assirian cat, I see the two sources you add mention Whiteshield, in the context of quoting from one of their partners, but I don't see any content about Whiteshield. Can you confirm which of the sources you think provide WP:ORGDEPTH or even WP:SIGCOV? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes outnumber delete views so far, but what exactly is Whiteshield notable for?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 17:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ordo Aurum Solis[edit]

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

Seems almost whole primary sources, thus seems to not pass wp:n Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astrology and Paranormal. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be found, in which case the article would, of course, need to be completely rewritten. Brunton (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which still might be best to nuke it for orbit and start from scratch? Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TNT. Brunton (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent sources that would indicate notability outside of the bubble built by a couple of authors. –Austronesier (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsure Weak Keep was thinking delete unless reliable sources can be found for this purported hermetic order. But maybe sources exist. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable sources exist that are not part of Llewelyn press after review. There are... not many... but they are sufficient not to warrant deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223: Such as? Here's the relevant Google Scholar search result:[5]. If you can present one or two independent RS among these for evaluation, that would be sufficient as a first step. –Austronesier (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The very first one is a non-Llewellyn book. [6] Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just about "non-Llewellyn". Have a look at the first page of the preview. Do you consider Kraft's book an independent and reliable source? –Austronesier (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an in-universe description of a magical tradition. Wikipedia doesn't care if it's true. Just if it's notable. I am not suggesting Wikipedia should treat these descriptions as being of actual effects of magical ritual. I am just suggesting this group of magic type people appears to meet the minimum standard for WP:GNG. Barely. Simonm223 (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And can't be used to establish notability. That needs to be done by third-party sources. Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia doesn't care if it's true. Sure, but Wikipedia cares if it's WP:DUE. That's an essential part of WP:GNG. –Austronesier (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article suffers from poor management and sourcing, but it is not a non-notable organization in its "field," arguably on par with the Ciceros' Golden Dawn order, the now-defunct Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn, the Crowleyan A∴A∴/OTO and the (also under-written) Fraternitas Rosae Crucis. It would give an incomplete picture for this org to not have its own page. I'd mentioned this before, but maybe I could give this article a real try at sourcing. As was suggested above, starting from scratch (but without deletion) might be the best option.
AnandaBliss (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its been tagged as needing this for over 10 years. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not cleanup. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is because wp:n applies, as does wp:fringe and wp:undue. Throwing out the rubbish is just what AFD is for. Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if it turns out there are sources, it would be better to restart from scratch given the state of the article. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some Google Scholar entries apparently exist. I have not reviewed yet. [7] Unsigned comment by Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with comment. As I write this article claims Ordo Aurum Solis was founded by George Stanton and Charles Kingold, names confirmed here in Encyclopedia.com. However, that encyclopedia doesn't say it was the Christian bishop George Stanton. It likely would have been a blasphemous scandal for him to do such a thing and the alleged founding is not and was never mentioned in bishop Stanton's Wikipedia biography. Stanton and Kingold are called "occultists" in another encyclopedia.com article [8]. KEEP because Ordo Aurum Solis qualifies for an entry in encyclopedia.com. 5Q5|✉ 12:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I de-Wikified George Stanton as not being the Christian bishop but an occultist. An online search for "George Stanton" occultist confirms this. 5Q5|✉ 09:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The current article is improperly sourced and/or WP:OR, promotional ("The current Grand Master Jean-Louis de Biasi continues to maintain the high moral standards of this tradition") and unsalvageable. If sufficient appropriate sources can ever be found to justify a new article, none of the existing content will be required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Towler-Green[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A WP:BEFORE came up with the following sources: [[9]][[10]]. Let'srun (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Capstick-Dale[edit]

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

Being the 316th wealthiest person does not guarantee notability. Subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Only two sources from the Evening Standard may establish notability, but one is an interview. All others are brief statements, mentions, a listing, and unreliable content. ToadetteEdit! 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unzela Khan[edit]

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

It appears the subject doesn't meet the WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR, as their works don't seem noteworthy enough. The press coverage in WP:RS also not significant or in depth enough, so fails to meet WP:GNG. Does not satisfy WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the article is not noteworthy.
Crosji (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or better to be moved to the draft Kotebeet (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I disagree with the nominator. A British Muslim Awards recipient is already qualified for a Wikipedia entry per WP:ANYBIO and from the article was cited to a reliable source per WP:RS. Also, as a journalist of a notable newspaper or TV which she was for Huffpost give us assurance of passing WP:JOURNALIST. She also wrote a book which is notable enough to qualify WP:NAUTHOR. What's then needed for an article? Not being braid doesn't mean it came be a standalone article. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy ping to @Saqib, @Crosji, and @Kotebeet for the argument per se. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I so saw so may PR but was able to get reliable ones. See here and here. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SafariScribe, I'm curious about how she meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria simply for working at Huffpost. The policy doesn't say anything like this. Additionally, is writing just one book sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One book which is reviewed by reliable sources is considered as notable. But may not require a article. However, we usually have problem when journalists wrote about others as few or less writing about them, in other way, winning an award for such excellence in media is part of both ANYBIO and JOURNALISM. While these are additional criteria, the article generally meets our general notability guidelines where being cited to reliable sources, verifiable and significantly covered per WP:SIGCOV. Even as there isn't any fact for such, a redirect should have served better not only when she won a major award and a book mistake reviewed. Let's be truthful herein and ignore certain additional essays. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because the article raises concerns regarding its credibility due to several factors: 1) Excessive Referencing: With only six sentences, the presence of ten references seems disproportionate. This abundance of citations may suggest an attempt to over-validate the content rather than provide genuine support for the points made. 2) Questionable Contributor: The primary contributor, "User:Kotebeet," [contributed approximately 80% of the content], is no longer active on the platform. This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor.--Crosji (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crosji, you are wrong here. I disagree that an AFD process requires the author except in major cases like undisclosed WP:UPE or thereabout. I am asking you do look at the article by our process of inclusion; WP:GNG. If you have any issue with the creator, then face them. I can't find any argument you're making besides you vote says "not noteworthy". Meaning? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crosji, also there is no issue of WP:REFBOMB here. I don't seem to understand your statement This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor, when a creator doesn't require anything on whether to delete an article or keep them. However, this is a process and you can't vote twice. Do remove any of the votes. Thanks! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Focus on policy, not issues that can be addressed via editing and Crosji, please strike your duplicate vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by ITV[edit]

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

Fails NOTDIRECTORY/NOTTVGUIDE. List criteria is programming "that are either currently being broadcast or have previously been broadcast", Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide, current or historical. Fails NLIST, no independent reliable sources discuss this as a group. BEFORE found programing schedules, nothing more. List has grown so much is it hard to tell if any of it is original programming, BEFORE did not find sources showing original programming discussed as a group.  // Timothy :: talk  07:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A couple of comments on the nomination. For those more familiar with television elsewhere, the UK traditionally only had a very small number of TV broadcasters - the ITV group was one of two from 1955 to 1982, the other being the BBC. So there is a lot of original programming in that list - prior to 1982, about half of the UK's locally-originated TV programming was made by one of the ITV companies. In terms of reliable sources discussing this as a group, one I'd suggest is Asa Briggs' The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Volume V: Competition, which has a lengthy chapter (Audiences and Programmes (1955-1960), pp141-255) discussing the early development of ITV programming across a range of genres and contrasting it with BBC TV in the same period. Adam Sampson (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Others[edit]

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also



England[edit]

Big Ben Phonogram[edit]

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

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. The About section in the website listed in References - https://www.bigben.se/phonogram/about draws a blank. Wikilover3509 (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Chapter Two: The March Of Progress[edit]

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

No reason why this small show would be independently notable from the parent company. WP:BEFORE didn't show this event was particularly notable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the sincere feedback. However, I believe that a proper categorization and documentation of Progress Wrestling's "Chapter" flagship events should exist. Now I understand that the early chapters might indeed be less notable than the more recent ones but I believe they should be part of the project which has to benefit from clear continuity. The presence of only some of the chapters on the mainspace would disrupt it as this continuity should be sanctioned as a book with pages. Let me know what you think. Regards! JeyReydar97 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have articles on subjects that aren't notable simply because later similar articles might be notable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of these events are also featured on WWE Network's broadcast system as VOD shoes as Progress has held business relationships with WWE. They're pretty popular on that streaming service. JeyReydar97 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No coverage in RS, nothing found now. Was a decade ago, likely no further coverage. I don't see any sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It has video coverage on Progress' Youtube channel. I also found written coverages from two trustworthy sites. One of them is 411Mania. They should be more than enough as references. JeyReydar97 (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Perhaps User:JeyReydar97 could combine a couple of these early events into a larger article? Mixed martial arts does something similar for articles such as 2020 in Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki. JTtheOG (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Michaels[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG, with no significant secondary coverage in RS. The best I could find in a WP:BEFORE search was a few interviews in essentiallysports.com, and the rest is social media, press releases, and some coverage in WP:THESUN and WP:DAILYEXPRESS. Strong aroma of UPE here, including this addition today of a selfie, unavailable on the source claimed at Commons.

Please note that the first AFD was about a writer and filmmaker, and not about the football businessman. Wikishovel (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Churney[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage establishing independent notability. It seems that most coverage of the subject is in the context of Ooberman (and to a lesser extent – The Magic Theatre, which is a section of the Ooberman article), a redirect to which would make sense as an alternative to deletion. toweli (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Chantler[edit]

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

These sources cover the subject only in relation to his death, nothing more, as per my WP:BEFORE. Therefore, the article fails WP:BLP1E, which states, "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

Breakdown of cited sources:

Citybuzz[edit]

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussions of similar recent deletions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 1; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 7 --woodensuperman 08:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McLintock[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and all coverage seems to be in passing. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Lewis (politician)[edit]

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

Obviously fails WP:NPOL as being the leader of Sutton Council does not make one inherently notable. Even Ruth Dombey who occupied the seat before Lewis was and isn't inherently notable under NPOL. There's no WP:GNG pass either as there are no sources that are independent or provide significant coverage of the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable subject as the nominator describes. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Politicians at the borough council level are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show a credible reason to consider them a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for that level of office — but this is basically "he is a councillor who exists", referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This politician isn't really relevant outside of local politics in Sutton. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Apart from fact that this article doesn't meet WP:GNG, I am particularly seeking being a leader of London Borough of Sutton. But while u was checking whether there can be a possible redirect, I saw leader is usually a "Mayor", thus, this individual doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Editors here are correct and in agreement. This is an easy delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Najma Akhtar[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Dowrylauds (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Fitzwiliam[edit]

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

No significant coverage and not enough major roles. SL93 (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Collins[edit]

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

Although this biography has many references, is it actually notable? Does making art that gain media attention due to their provactive notions create sufficient notability? No inbound links. No awards. No wider coverage that I can see. Seaweed (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Politics, Sexuality and gender, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: More than enough good RS, 3, 4 and 6 are the first ones I pulled up and they're about this individual. I suppose GNG is met, I'm unsure if they meet artistic notability, but they've been talked about enough by others, so that we can also include them here in wiki under general notability. Call it a cultural oddity curiosity I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've looked through most of the sources that could be considered reliable, and none are significant coverage that I see. The "Time" source,[13] for example, is just three sentences and an embedded instagram post. Elspea756 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: sources 3 and 4 are good, as is source 15 (a reminder that BuzzFeed News is different from BuzzFeed and is reliable). Source 19 even describes the subject as "award-winnning". Toadspike [Talk] 07:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To respond to SportingFlyer below, I think it's clear that the GNG has been met. For us to decide that people who get excessive media attention for provocative stunts need to meet some higher bar would require an RfC, or for someone to point me to some hidden policy/guideline I've never read. The media is biased toward this stuff, and, for better or for worse, we rely on the media to source our articles and determine what's notable. Toadspike [Talk] 11:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure, honestly. There's lots of sources - too many, really - in the article talking about his art, because his art is provocative, but many of them are just links to self-promotion on social media. The article needs a good cleanup, too. I don't really see any critical coverage of him, though, that I would expect to see from an artist. Don't really want to delete, but am leaning delete. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must admit I'm a bit confused about biographical articles about artists sometimes. I mean, if your life is about creating artworks, when do you become notable? It's fine if that's your career and livelihood, but when does make you notable for an encyclopedia? Where is the line? I think it's also fair to say that a key feature of the artistic world is about awards, prizes, grants etc. It's quite commonplace. Therefore I do wonder sometimes if we give undue weight to artist who has this award or nominated for that award. I'm also a bit concerned that too much weight is placed on media mentions to justify a Wikipedia article. To be fair, I do find it hard work to read all the Wikipedia policies sometimes, but I suppose that's my problem. In summary, I'm still not convinced that Conor Collins is notable enough for Wikipedia. Failing that, it's definitely too detailed. Seaweed (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I don't see notability here either. The notability guideline for artists is WP:ARTIST. It is basically that there needs to be multiple reliable independent sources that devote significant coverage to the artist, or that the artist is widely cited by their peers, has been a significant part of a significant exhibition, their work is in the permanent collections of multiple major museums, things like that. I am not seeing anything like that here, it's all just insignificant WP:ROUTINE coverage of minor run-of-the-mill events, like that "this drawing of a celebrity by a local artist got several thousand likes on twitter." Elspea756 (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's sort of my thinking as well. Most articles include links back to his social media account, making it a question as to whether he's been truly independently noticed in my book. It's clear he's getting noticed, but this may just be WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 17:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne Silva[edit]

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

Not sure if this biography is notable. No references. No pages linked. Never quite sure with artists where notability lies. Don't think so in this case. Seaweed (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm guessing this is either an autobiography or other type of COI creation by a gallery that shows her work due to the entirely unsourced article containing many details about her. A WP:BEFORE search found a review of her work in Financial Times:[14], but almost everything else I have found so far seems to be gallery PR, social media, an interview[15] (primary source that doesn't count towards notability because no editorial content), a book review on F-stop magazine's blog,[16], database listings, press releases. I also found an online artist project for which she took the photos[17]. The Wikipedia Library found an in-depth article by TJ Demos in Photoworks Journal [18] (you might have to log into WP:LIB to read it). What seems to be missing are a track record of art reviews by critics or art historians, works in museum collections, so I don't think she meets NARTIST, but I think she may meet GNG. Holding off on !voting for now, as I'd like to hear feedback from others who edit in the visual arts/photography area. Netherzone (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I had marked this for notability in 2021. I was in the middle of another task, and did not get back to clean-up/delete. No improvement made to article. Notability tag removed by SPA without adding a single reference. I am not finding any RS to confirm claims made in the article. Fails WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Keep - Changing vote to keep per WP:HEY. I rewrote the lede becasue we still don't have a birth year or place and the second sentence was artspeak, not supported by the citation. I also think the unsourced last paragraph of shows should be removed. Only to be returned with sourcing. Article has changed from an artist statement to an article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Everything about it leaves a bad taste. Nowhere near statisfying WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is nothing more than a artist statement and bio. Complete with the empty "art speak". This has no business being on wikipedia. Steelyphilly (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: As the article has rewritten I flip my vote to Keep. Thank you@Netherzone for your research! I still think that artist statements have no business being on here! Steelyphilly (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – A thorough WP:BEFORE finds that she clearly meets WP:GNG. While in the early stages of her career as an artist who works in the genre of environmental photography and socially aware photography, her work has indeed received critical/analytical coverage that one would expect a notable artist to have. While she does not yet meet WP:NARTIST, there is enough WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources that she solidly meets the general notability guideline. I invite WomenArtistUpdates, MaskedSinger and Steelyphilly to consider the in-depth reliable sources that have been found:
  • Journal article by Caruso, Martina. 2019. "Conversing with Ghosts of the Previously Tamed: lens-based media technologies and non-human animals in the work of Christoph Keller, Corinne Silva and Basma Alsharif" in ESPACE art actuel ‘Point de vue animal/Animal Point of View’, no. 121 (Winter), pp. 28 – 33.
  • Book chapter on her work in: “Photography Reframed: New Visions in Contemporary Photographic Culture.” Editors: Ben Burbridge, Annebella Pollen, the chapter by Chad Elias is on her work: “Landscape Photography's 'New Humanism”, pages 175-186. ISBN 9781784538828, I.B. Tauris (I was able to view on Google Books)
  • Her book, “Garden State”, in addition to the review by Hans Durrer in F-Stop Magazine’s blog [19] linked above, there is this review: 2016 Book review: Corinne Silva: Garden State, by Francesca Laura Cavallo, Camera Austria, Issue 135 [20]
  • In addition to the twelve-page spread by TJ Demos linked above, (2012) Spaces of Global Capital: On the Photography of Corinne Silva & Jason Larkin, TJ Demos, Photoworks 19, ISBN 9781903796368,[21] there is this review: [22], this review [23], this interview: [24],
The article need to be rewritten, probably pruned back to a short stub with proper citations. Netherzone (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough. i will take a look. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
indeed. I added three of the refs above to the article. Still not finding any biographical information that can be used in the article. I will continue looking. I can't get past the FT paywall. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates, Financial Times has a really strong paywall~! I can't get back in on Safari even after clearing my cookies. I tried accessing it on Firefox and got it at: [25] I copied the text from the article and will email it to you where you can read it offline if you can't access it thru an alternative browser. If I post it here it will be a COPYVIO. Netherzone (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Netherzone. I changed my !vote. Thanks for digging deeper. I could not see beyond poorly written article originally presented. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Farley[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable broadcaster. SL93 (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Dyer[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. None of the offices the subject occupies/occupied can make them inherently notable under NPOL. GNG is not passable as there are insufficient sources. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Minimal coverage for the city position, simply standing as a candidate isn't notable enough for here. Not meeting notability, I can't find anything beyond confirmation of the city position. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Don't meet WP:NPOL. Unverifiable contents. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Wells[edit]

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

I have been unable to find sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. The single source cited in the article is a Wordpress blog. She doesn't seem to me to meet WP:NACTOR either; Coronation Street is a notable show but her role in it was not significant, Kisses at Fifty is one episode of an anthology drama. Overall, she doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While she does have a Wikipedia page, most of her roles seem to be minor, except Get Some In! in which she has acted in 21 episodes, but as a minor role. She doesn't meet the notability criterion. Wikilover3509 (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Kisses at Fifty was a one-off TV play, but an important one, where she had an important role. It was one of the best-known plays in Play for Today, and the BBC repeated it quite recently. Here role in Get Some In! wasn't that minor, she appears in the list of characters, and in the box at the start (and I did not put her there). PatGallacher (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: seems to pass WP:NACTOR for 2 significant roles in notable productions. More sources wouldn't hurt. I would have suggested a redirect to Kisses at Fifty, but her role in Get Some In! is also rather significant. Worst case scenario, that might be a solution, though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature of England[edit]

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

This page is nearly entirely covered by the article British literature. Quoting from the lead of that article, "Anglo-Saxon (Old English) literature is included, [in this article] and there is some discussion of Latin and Anglo-Norman literature". The parts not talked about there are under the other articles listed in the main topic hatnotes of each of the proposed article's sections. The only one not mentioned here in British lit is Hebrew literature from England, which as well has its own separate article. Your average reader, when typing "literature of England", is likely looking for the literature of England (covered in the British lit article) that is in English. Based off this, I propose to blank and redirect and merge this article into the aforementioned British literature article. This is done with many other literature country articles, seen in literature of France, which redirects to French literature, and literature of Germany, Spain, etc. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, United Kingdom, and England. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure - briefly my problem with almost all pages of the "literature of x place" is that the subject is impossibly broad and therefore inclusion/exclusion decisions are at the whim of editors. That said there clearly are academics writing about it such as 1 - which itself has a more interesting lede para than the WP page - so by the WP:GNG it appears to have the level of independent scholarly RS for inclusion. I'd like to hear other thoughts to help clarify in my own mind whether (or how) this page could/should be kept. JMWt (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that this is not a deletion (or redirect) proposal for English literature, which entirely covers any content from the article literature of England that may be about literature from England in English. I'm aware plenty of sources exist for English literature in English, as this is why we have the former article, but the proposed article is about literature in England mostly not in English, which, as said above, is covered by either British literature or the other main articles. A possible remedy to this is maybe changing the potential new redirect target of this page from British literature to English literature, although the latter is not exclusive to England itself and is about literature written in English as a whole. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if it is you that are confused or me. As far as I'm concerned
    • English literature refers to literature in the English language
    • Literature of England refers to literature produced in England in any language.
    I do not understand why you keep implying that the Literature of England must necessarily be in the English language nor why we should take your word for that. JMWt (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to imply that, more so that in an article about English literature (meaning any literature written in England) — literature of England — the only content in the article is about literature that is not in English. By saying this I'm not implying that the article should only be about English literature in English, rather that the English literature in English is already fully covered in the articles of English literature and British literature, and as the latter is particular to the British Isles and the former is not as you said, the content from Literature of England (the proposed article) should be either redirected or incorporated into British lit. The British lit article does not have to be about just literature from GB in English, as is already said in the lead of the article. Another alternative would be to make Literature of England a disambig page to show the different articles of various languages of literature from England, although for now I'm staying with my original argument. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, not delete to either British literature or English literature, as appropriate. My understanding is that "English literature" is the literature of England, irrespective of what language it's written in; I presume the same is true of "British literature". Merger is the correct procedure if there's potentially useful material here, even if the contribution is minimal, or it turns out that everything is already included; in that case the article would still become a redirect to one of the relevant articles, but readers checking the article history would see that any relevant content here was reviewed and included in the target article before this became a redirect. The difference between merger and deletion is sometimes subtle, but still important. P Aculeius (talk 13:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original proposal was never to delete the article, as I said in the wording above, it is to blank and redirect the article. There is nothing to merge, and thus blanking and redirecting, (per WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R) is an acceptable means of dealing with sitations such as this, and again per those policies, it is advised that controversial blanks and redirects are discussed on AFD, as I did here, even if the goal is not deletion.
Also, remember that it is best practice to sign your talk page comments by adding four tildes at the end of a message. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking and redirecting is pretty much deletion—and this is "Articles for deletion", not "Articles for discussion". A merge doesn't necessarily involve moving things to other articles, but it ensures that editors know that the whole contents of an article—or anything useful in it—has been covered at the target article. Whether there's useful content isn't determined by whether it's duplicative of something better elsewhere. As I said, the distinction between merger and deletion is sometimes a subtle one, but important: if you just "blank and redirect" without indicating that the article was merged, editors might reasonably infer that no effort was made to ensure that the topic was fully covered at the target article or other appropriate places. And really no significant effort is required on anybody's part to do a merge in an instance where the contents are fully covered, so what's the objection?
Also, remember that any editor likely to comment on procedure probably knows how to sign a comment, and doesn't need an explanation of how to do it. It's easy enough to forget to type four tildes when editing one's own comments. P Aculeius (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I see your point and I mostly agree, though it doesn't really seem right to call it a "merge" when no content is being merged into the new article, and incorporating parts of an existing article into a different one and then redirecting/deleting it is different than simply not incorporating any content and simply blanking and redirecting. We do seem to basically be on the same page though and I'll change the wording for not wanting to argue. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as consensus right now is unclear. If this AFD is closed as a Merge, editors can merge the article's contents to more than one article. But we use XFDcloser to close AFDs and it can only handle listing one target article. So, if that was the closure, would it be to British literature? Also remember that we are only talking about how to close this discussion, if this closure was for a Merge, editors undertaking that merge could chose to use all, some or none of the article content in a merger. It's up to whomever editor volunteers to handle a merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::There seems to be consensus to merge the article into the mentioned British literature article, although in practice I don't see what would actually need to be moved since the article Literature of England is only really about literature from England not in the English language — it consists solely of summaries of the articles Anglo-Latin literature, Anglo-Norman literature, and Early English Jewish literature. Either way, yes, the merge would be to British literature, and as you said, the actual content can be moved to any article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Retracting for now, see below comment. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well I don't agree with that (and to make it clearer I'm now !voting !keep) and at least one other !voter doesn't so I don't think as the nom you should be instructing the closer as to what is or isn't consensus. The fact that the page is unfinished is not a reason to merge or redirect. To reiterate what I said previously, the topic of this page is not the same as for British literature. JMWt (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might, however, be the same as "English Literature", if we include all literature written in England or by English writers, irrespective of the language they wrote in. That's my understanding of the term, since it certainly includes Old English and Middle English writing, and at least in the academic sense does not include English-language literature written elsewhere in the world, or at least not all English-language literature, American Literature being considered a distinct and mostly non-overlapping topic. I note, however, that our article on English Literature expressly states otherwise—there seems to be a debate on the talk page about its scope, but that doesn't concern the issue of non-English literature of England. Actually I'm a little confused about why there aren't more discussions there, seeing as I don't see any archived talk pages...
You're correct in that an article shouldn't be deleted or merged because it's incomplete. The fact that the topic hasn't been significantly changed or expanded since 2016, and remains a brief four paragraphs long, doesn't prove that it has no potential for expansion. However, it does mean that if the subject is or could conveniently be covered as fully as it is here, as part of "English Literature" or another, more comprehensive article, then there is little need for this article to duplicate that coverage, unless and until the topic becomes unwieldy as part of another article, at which time it could be split off and recreated under this or another appropriate title.
The argument for merger isn't an argument that this article has no value or that its subject is invalid: it's that the best way to treat the topic is as part of a broader or more comprehensive treatment that already exists, and the merger process is designed to ensure that nothing useful is lost. The merging editor or editors would be obliged to ensure that the usable contents here are fully covered in other articles before this title becomes a redirect to one of them, and that if necessary hatnotes direct readers from one target to another. P Aculeius (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870)[edit]

W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too much cruft, must be deleted as per convention to remove the australian fanfict articles Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @JoelleJay @Trainsandotherthings @Serial Number 51429 as I have seen them in support for such article removals Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:APPNOTE says "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." James500 (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Naughty, WP:CANVASSing shouldn't be carried out! AA (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is clear WP:CANVASSing of people they expect to vote with them. This canvassing should be considered by the closer of this AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AA @James500 like I replied to Joseph2302 on my talk - I have pinged those who also voiced against such votes. The sole purpose of me pinging them was to invite more people into the discussion. I dont cherry pick people of one stance and bring them here. Afaik; thats allowed by the first para in WP:CANVASS. Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ill take that my wording says otherwise - my intentions dont Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:
W. G. Grace in the 1871 English cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1872 to 1873) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace with the English cricket team in Australia in 1873–74 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1874 to 1875) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1876 to 1877) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1879 to 1882) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1883 to 1886) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1887 to 1891) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace with the English cricket team in Australia in 1891–92 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1892 to 1894) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace in the 1895 English cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1896 to 1899) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1900 to 1908) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What are you referring to by "australian fanfict articles"? -1ctinus📝🗨 01:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the two pages was merged they should not have been deleted. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you copy some text from another Wikipedia page it should be clear in the edit summary and/or the talk page where the text came from. Wikipedia is not public domain. Christian75 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. I havent done that mate, just nominated these pages Pharaoh496 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that I was pinged to this discussion, and that I'm not a fan of these articles, I believe we should delete all as fundamental violations of WP:NOT as cricket statistics turned into articles due to one person's consumption by what I like to call the cricket insanity. They are also clearly non-notable as the sources cover Grace's entire career, not simply his performance in any given event. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably merge the shorter articles, with less referencing, to larger articles covering longer periods of time. These articles do not consist entirely of statistics, though it may be appropriate to cut some material from them. A chronological split of our W G Grace article will satisfy GNG. See, for example, the coverage of the 1880s in Bax's chapter "The Glorious Eighties"  [26]; the chapter on Grace in Portraits of the Eighties: [27]; Midwinter's chapters 7 and 8 on 1879 to 1891: [28]; and Darwin's chapter 6 on 1880 to 1891: [29]. So you could certainly write an article on W. G. Grace in the 1880s or the period 1879 to 1891. The question is not whether the main biography article should be split, but how. W G Grace is the subject of a large number of entire books, since he is probably considered the greatest cricketer of all time, so his biography is not realistically going to fit in a single article. James500 (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well other cricketers with longer careers do also have same articles. One new thing that has been inspired from football articles is a seperate career page - Career of Lionel Messi. Since Virat Kohli's page was long, I made this article Career of Virat Kohli. Maybe something similar? Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge all Is this a mockery of some sort? Sure you can split some details from the main article, but why the hell would you make more than a dozen subarticles, each with just a few paragraphs? WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTSTATS come to mind here, we don't need prose sections for every season with the stats. Reywas92Talk 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have never looked at these articles before, but would assume they would all be mostly more than a few sentences! The W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season article can be selectively merged. AA (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – The player is very notable in Cricket, but it is possible to summarize the information in the main article, or recreate it in a less number of forks. Svartner (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a reminder, you can't argue for a Merge or a Redirect without providing a specific list of what the target article is for each article being discussed. The discussion closer carries out the consensus, they can't make these decisions up on their own. It's the discussants' role to provide a full resolution to an AFD nomination, not just an outcome. Otherwise, the closer might have to dismiss these kinds of opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean merging these various articles into something more direct, like "W. G. Grace's cricket career". I understand that it is possible to summarize the main content to avoid this number of forks. Svartner (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, I am not aware of any policy, guideline or consensus that says that. I do not think that is how we normally deal with mass proposals. The number of articles nominated, and the number of book chapters that would have to be examined, would make it difficult to compile a complete list of merger targets in the 7 days of an AfD. I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that articles should be merged in accordance with the scope of the chronological chapters in those books, and then leave the final determination to the WP:PROPMERGE process, which does not have a 7 day deadline. For the avoidance of doubt, I have proposed an intial merge of the relevant three articles to W. G. Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 based on the scope of the book chapters I mentioned. To insist that I provide, within 7 days, a list of each and every other target based on the other chronological chapters in those books (and their chapters are chronological) is certainly obstructive, and might confront me with a WP:FAITACCOMPLIS. I see no reason why a closing admin cannot look at the chronological scope of the chapters of those books. James500 (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I mentioned - a seperate article called Career of W.G. Grace, which is like a few prexisting articles. That covers all Pharaoh496 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Noting that I was pinged here after having participated in several other cricket career salami-slice article discussions (many non-AfDs). FWIW, I definitely would have !voted in this even without being pinged since I watch the sportspeople delsort. Anyway, I agree with TaOT and AA (!!!) that these articles are not salvageable and should be deleted (with maybe some content from the 1878 one merged?). They are largely prosifications of routine, primary stats reports from CricketArchive with a handful of trivial anecdotes and quotes sprinkled in. If there was anything from these time periods worth including in the main article it would not be from these articles and therefore merging is not appropriate.
    As an example, of the 1871 sources: 34/58 sources are stats, corresponding to 1480/2348 words. Of the remainder, 777 are to presumably secondary independent sources, with 640 words outside the lead. Out of those 640, 411 are repeated verbatim (or nearly) in the main page. That leaves the total amount of content that could be merged at 229 words:

    Grace turned 23 in July 1871

    Grace in 1871 was principally involved with four teams: the Gentlemen, Gloucestershire County Cricket Club, Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and the United South of England Eleven (USEE).

    1871 was a wet summer and, even when the rain relented, there was a persistent chilly wind.[8] Grace, however, had the skill and resilience to cope with adverse conditions and some of his best batting performances were achieved on wet wickets.

    This innings was played on a "sticky wicket" after rain and many people considered it the finest of Grace's career, though Grace himself disagreed.
    Grace began the innings cautiously and took fifteen minutes to score his first run but then, records Rae, he "scored at a cracking pace".[9] MCC Secretary Harry Perkins had no doubts and insisted that it was Grace's greatest-ever performance with rain frequently stopping play and making the wicket at times "unplayable".

    Grace's presence ensured a bumper crowd with over £400 being taken at the gate. This money went a long way towards the £1500 that Nottinghamshire needed to erect the Trent Bridge Pavilion.

    Simon Rae remarked that cricket enthusiasts still argue about Grace's "greatest season" and that 1871 features in any such discussion.

    He took 79 wickets at 17.02 with a best analysis of 7–67. He claimed five wickets in an innings 5 times and twice had 10 in a match.

    The bolded "finest" innings being referred to is from a "Married v. Single" first-class match, which I've gone ahead and merged into the main article (with author attribution). The rest of the material is trivial or would be redundant. Considering the 1871 page is one of the few containing any unique non-trivial, non-primary content, I think it is reasonable to consider the rest of the articles unsalvageable forks that should be deleted rather than merged. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cruft-based forks of the main biography. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since there's a valid ATD on the table, per Liz's comment, it would be helpful to know what information should be merged and to where.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Rogers[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level does not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. No senior level competition at all. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golf Course News International[edit]

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

Looking through the sources, I'm not finding any evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this apparently defunct publication. Basically all of the coverage of the publication revolves around its disastrous raunchy 2006 rebrand. The only mainstream source I can find covering the publication in any detail is an article in the Independent from 2006 covering the rebrand, along with a very brief article in Press Gazette covering a hiring decision the same year, with other coverage of the rebrand in the niche Golf Business News also in 2006. There's also a 2006 public statement by ex publication head Trevor Ledger in Pitchcare regarding the rebrand. Either way, even if these niche golf sources counted, it still wouldn't pass WP:SUSTAINED due to all the sources being from 2006. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamales Lardi[edit]

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

Questionable notability and clearly WP:PROMO Amigao (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Sources 3 and 31 are the only ones in RS and they aren't about this person. Rest are fluff pieces or PR items... I find nothing beyond Forbes Council member pieces, which don't contribute to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ADMASQ, sourced to PR/puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia:Citation overkill with spammy SEO sources has left it impossible to discern whether there is actually any reliable significant coverage of the subject that might pass WP:GNG. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but her lecturer/visiting/advisory positions at universities definitely doesn't pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Oaktree b and DE above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A (P)romotional WP:MILL. Refbomb also incorporated. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Heil[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Hull Kingston Rovers players as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Rhinos–Wakefield Trinity rivalry[edit]

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

No evidence that this is a particularly notable rivalry, if it can even be considered one at all. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the festive challenge wasn't always exclusively a Leeds v Wakefield friendly (Leeds have played other opponents in the past: [30] [31]), so that part should definitely be removed or separated into another article. I've no problem with merging the rest with West Yorkshire derbies if others think it's notable enough for inclusion. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transfer information and redirect to West Yorkshire derbies#Leeds Rhinos and Wakefield Trinity Mn1548 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If adequate sources, can be found supporting that the Festive Challenge was once more than Leeds vs Wakefield then this should be created as a new article. Mn1548 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are sources which have the festive challenge first being played in 1996 and mention Halifax, Bradford and Castleford as taking part before Wakefield so a move back to the original page name would be suitable for this section. But I could find very little about Leeds and Wakefield being regarded as rivals and it is not mentioned in lists of derbies: [32]. EdwardUK (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, this rivalry, along with a few others, seems to have just been bolted on to the "West Yorkshire Derby" section of Derbies in the Rugby Football League which from what I can gather, the West Yorkshire Derby is between Leeds and Bradford. Would support a move back to the original page name for Festive Challenge content only with the rest being transferred to the West Yorkshire derbies page, then a clear up of said page for any rivalries that appear to have just been made up. Mn1548 (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the content relating to the Boxing Day friendlies to Festive Challenge. Thanks to @EdwardUK:'s work, I think this is well sourced enough to be kept, so I'm withdrawing my nomination for that part of the article. Now it's just whether the remaining content should be merged or deleted. I personally don't think it's a strong enough rivalry to be included even on the West Yorkshire page. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: To preserve the page history, it would need to be a merge or redirect rather than a delete. If it was merged, I doubt it would be kept following any clean-up of the WY derbies article. The head-to-head needs updating, and I am not sure how relevant the collective honours table is to any rivalry if the teams have never played each other in some of the competitions and Wakefield have never taken part in others. EdwardUK (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove Breeze routes[edit]

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --woodensuperman 12:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the routes have been discussed in various sources including the national broadcaster BBC News. I've added some of these to the article. Garuda3 (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the nomination statement is misleading. This article is about a group of three related bus routes, not an individual one as stated, bringing into question how much attention has been paid to it and to whether any WP:BEFORE has been attempted? Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good spot. Garuda3 (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Towler-Green[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A WP:BEFORE came up with the following sources: [[33]][[34]]. Let'srun (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Beg[edit]

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

So at first glance, this BLP looks legit but upon but digging deeper, I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows or movies as required per WP:ACTOR. Also, when I tried to find more about the subject per WP:BEFORE, I didn't come across enough coverage to meet WP:GNG either. Plus, it's worth noting that this BLP was created back in 2021 by a SPA Sahgalji (talk · contribs) and has been mostly edited by UPEs so there's COI issues as well. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Chupke Chupke, Pyari Mona, Hum Tum.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) (Again, sorry but so many Afds related to Pakistan/TV series, I might not reply here any further, should you, as I expect, not find the sources to your liking for one reason or another or if clarifications are needed; it was already challenging for me to find time to check some of them and !vote).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Nanetti[edit]

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

This footballer, who seems to have never played in the top 3 tiers in Italy or top 4 tiers in England, was deemed non-notable in an AfD discussion in 2020. I can't find signicant coverage in reliable sources published since then that would suggest he is now notable – per WP:GNG, as WP:NFOOTBALL is obsolete. The article content is not the same as the version deleted in 2020, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. Complex/Rational 17:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. seems okay, but not sure it's WP:SIGCOV, 2. per WP:THESUN, The Sun is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability, 3. very short, mostly quotes 4. short, mostly quotes, 5. a Wordpress blog – is the author a "subject-matter expert"?, 6. very short, mostly quotes, 7. short, mostly quotes, 8. one sentence mentions him, 9. per WP:DAILYMAIL, The Daily Mail is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability. So, of the nine sources you listed, one might be SIGCOV. Based on these sources alone, I don't see that Nannetti's a clearly significiant figure in English lower league football. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:, All many the sources from a variety of newspapers/news portals above are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider The Sun reliable for anything. GiantSnowman 08:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:, Even besides that, my other points still stand. Put together, even without the "tabloid newspapers", all the other sources from the newspapers and news portals like Gianlucadimzarzio show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed your sources prior to my !vote and nothing has changed my mind since. GiantSnowman 10:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article fail WP:SIRS, and the sources listed above none are independent significal coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the heavily-interview-based sources noted above are enough for GNG. Tabloids and other deprecated sources obviously are unacceptable in BLPs and should be removed on-sight. JoelleJay (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun is most certainly not reliable for BLPs, which require high-quality sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - my stance hasn't changed since my original source analysis at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Nanetti. I'm not convinced that any of the new sources in this discussion address the previous reasons for deletion. Those that offer more than trivial coverage are of questionable reliability as addressed several times above; The Sun, Daily Mail and Wordpress are not acceptable sources for BLPs and do not confer notability in any case. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unzela Khan[edit]

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

It appears the subject doesn't meet the WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR, as their works don't seem noteworthy enough. The press coverage in WP:RS also not significant or in depth enough, so fails to meet WP:GNG. Does not satisfy WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the article is not noteworthy.
Crosji (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or better to be moved to the draft Kotebeet (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I disagree with the nominator. A British Muslim Awards recipient is already qualified for a Wikipedia entry per WP:ANYBIO and from the article was cited to a reliable source per WP:RS. Also, as a journalist of a notable newspaper or TV which she was for Huffpost give us assurance of passing WP:JOURNALIST. She also wrote a book which is notable enough to qualify WP:NAUTHOR. What's then needed for an article? Not being braid doesn't mean it came be a standalone article. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy ping to @Saqib, @Crosji, and @Kotebeet for the argument per se. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I so saw so may PR but was able to get reliable ones. See here and here. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SafariScribe, I'm curious about how she meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria simply for working at Huffpost. The policy doesn't say anything like this. Additionally, is writing just one book sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One book which is reviewed by reliable sources is considered as notable. But may not require a article. However, we usually have problem when journalists wrote about others as few or less writing about them, in other way, winning an award for such excellence in media is part of both ANYBIO and JOURNALISM. While these are additional criteria, the article generally meets our general notability guidelines where being cited to reliable sources, verifiable and significantly covered per WP:SIGCOV. Even as there isn't any fact for such, a redirect should have served better not only when she won a major award and a book mistake reviewed. Let's be truthful herein and ignore certain additional essays. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because the article raises concerns regarding its credibility due to several factors: 1) Excessive Referencing: With only six sentences, the presence of ten references seems disproportionate. This abundance of citations may suggest an attempt to over-validate the content rather than provide genuine support for the points made. 2) Questionable Contributor: The primary contributor, "User:Kotebeet," [contributed approximately 80% of the content], is no longer active on the platform. This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor.--Crosji (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crosji, you are wrong here. I disagree that an AFD process requires the author except in major cases like undisclosed WP:UPE or thereabout. I am asking you do look at the article by our process of inclusion; WP:GNG. If you have any issue with the creator, then face them. I can't find any argument you're making besides you vote says "not noteworthy". Meaning? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crosji, also there is no issue of WP:REFBOMB here. I don't seem to understand your statement This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor, when a creator doesn't require anything on whether to delete an article or keep them. However, this is a process and you can't vote twice. Do remove any of the votes. Thanks! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Focus on policy, not issues that can be addressed via editing and Crosji, please strike your duplicate vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup[edit]

India at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These articles are unnecessary WP:CFORKs from the main article 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup, and are not required. We have never created articles for teams at Cricket World Cups before, as they are wholly unnecessary, and just copying content available on other articles, such as 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup and 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup squads. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Australia at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
England at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pakistan at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
South Africa at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The following articles would be suitable as in the T20 World Cup, many matches will be played and in these articles, the readers can read the per match summary, team's tournament progression, tournament kit, scorecard, per team statistics and many more of the respective cricket team at a single article, which is not possible to mention at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup article. Any articles which haven't been created earlier doesn't mean it is unnecessary, there should be an article to record any team's particular tournament edition journey. Wowlastic10 (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tournament summaries should be in the main article anyway, which would cover the important matches and information, so a split out for match summaries for every match including the WP:ROUTINE coverage ones is not required. Tournament kit would be WP:TRIVIA, team statistics sounds like it would violate WP:NOTSTATS/WP:TRIVIA. None of this sounds like encyclopedic content, and just because people create these articles for e.g. IPL teams (which are questionable to do anyway), that doesn't mean they are valid WP:CFORKs for this tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we keep it until first week of T20 World Cup? If you feel it useless then also, then you're free to delete it. What say? Wowlastic10 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be against this, as the onus is to prove that they are valid articles, not keeping in the hope they might be, against any evidence that they'll be anything other than a WP:CFORK with trivia and stats obsessions (like the IPL season articles). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The concept is basically like India at the 2020 Summer Olympics, where pages like India at the Cricket World Cup are split for every edition. This is infact a very important addition to wikipedia and should be made for all teams having played every ICC tournament. Like the IPL teams, county teams; this is a very valuable addition as each page will contain stuff others cant.
I have been working on similar articles in my private space, but havent published them yet as I want to properly finish the thing before publishing.
@Wowlastic10 I would encourage you to make similar articles for all editions of the T20 World Cup. Do remove the words ICC Men’s and make it like India at the 2024 T20 World Cup; following the common name process. Furthermore, include national stats such as viewership, tournament stats of players of that country, pictures, quotes, squad information and match details with some description. Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename these as suggested without WP:RM consensus, as the main article is at 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Also this comment doesn't address WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • More squad information such as matches played by each person, caps, etc
  • Proper matchwise description - not there on any other page
  • More information about reaction of said mactches and tournament in the country
  • Place to add pictures
Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Information on individual players as well. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More squad information such as matches played by each person, caps, etc - can be added to squad article, as has been done for some 50 over World Cup events.
Proper matchwise description - only needed for notable matches, not those with routine coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a fandom site.
Reactions are mostly trivial and unencyclopedic, and any events/reactions that are actually important can go in the main article.
Lots of pictures violates WP:NOTGALLERY
So none of these are a good reason to create these WP:CFORKs. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup I agree with the nom. I don't see these as being necessary as content for these forks will just be re-hashed details for the main article, and then lists and stats that violate WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS as they will just be random indiscriminate. If a particular team has a 'special' tournament, or gains significant coverage for another reason, then perhaps a fork can then be made, but one for each team is unnecessary, and the comparison to the Olympic articles doesn't wash given how much bigger an event (with loads more events and athletes) than a cricket tournament. We don't have forks for Football World Cup articles for example. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia, and these lists provide extra information about the playing nation than the main article. Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per @Wowlastic10, this can be more than a list, and it warrants an article for each country. If the article does not have unique info it can be merged back. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's what I'm saying, thanks for explaining it on my behalf. Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia- true, but putting information into various sub articles so people can add stats trivia isn't the best way of displaying it. We have an article on the events and squad articles, and those are the main 2 things about each team anyway. WP:CFORKs are still not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I can see these becoming unnecessary, poor quality, content forks consisting of minimal prose and just scorecards... nothing which can't be included in the main tournament article. AA (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let this discussion end, i'll again start including all the necessary details Wowlastic10 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont mean to bludgeon, but this has high chances of not ending up as a mere stub; per my reasons stated above. Each ipl team gets an annual page for its tournaments, as do the english county teams. This will only broaden and improve wikipedia's scope on the matter, considering the quality of cricket articles on here is way down compared to other sports. Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OSE, just because other events like the IPL get articles like this every year (which I don't agree with anyway), that doesn't mean these should too. Nobody so far has demonstrated why this isn't an unnecessary WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many times a player has played in the tournament - how many matches a swuad member played
    • top 5 batting and bowling averages in the team etc
    • catches and dismissals
    • reaction / outrage / media coverage of tournament and team in said country
    • prizes and awards won by players for performance in tourney
    • explicit knockout stage performances
    I respect your opinion wholeheartedly, but ipl and county teams have existed for long, with some of them featured and good articles. This is an opportunity for editors, who will add more valuable info and like i said, simply broaden wikipedia’s scope. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these things are encyclopedic enough, and no article with them will be a GA or FA if the process for GA or FA is applied properly. County teams don't have season articles and most IPL teams have tables and no prose, which is what these articles are and likely will always be. This is an encyclopedia and not a fandom site. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's easy for a visitor to get all the details about their desired team at one place. I'd say we keep the Teamwise articles and should nominate the Squads article for deletion. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the squads article isn't there, and all the fixtures are instead transcluded from the main page; it won't be a WP:CFORK. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ILIKEIT. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not what I like, it's a suggestion to improve these articles. Vestrian24Bio (U, T, A, C, S) 07:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Squad articles are a cricket standard for these events, and can be expanded easily. These country articles are not standard or needed, swapping one squad article for loads of country articles is not a good solution. Just because it's the sort of thing WP:IPL would do, that doesn't mean other cricket tournament articles should do that. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, pretty much the point. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a deletion discussion about squad articles, that would need a separate consensus (and nominating right now would just further muddy the waters). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (alternate solution): per nom individual articles for teams' performance at each world cup seems uneccesary. I suggest we have articles for teams' overall record in the tournament and we can have season wise breakdown or details there. Cric editor (talk) 3:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. My instinct, as a regular AFD closer is to Redirect these article to the competition which is typically what we do with bundled nominations like this. But I don't see a consensus for this action so that would be a supervote on my part. I'd rather not close this as No consensus so let's see if a few more days of consideration can form a rough consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup Dowrylauds (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Due to the importance of cricket for these countries and the relevance of the competition. The alternative of summarizing the retrospective on all editions of the World Cup by country presented by @User:Cric editor, is valid and can later transform individual edition articles into redirects. Svartner (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]


Northern Ireland[edit]

Others[edit]

Scotland[edit]

Robert Gordon University – Garthdee campus[edit]

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

This whole page reads like an overly detailed promotional pamphlet for the Robert Gordon University, and the main Robert Gordon University article has most, if not all, of the useful information from this article in its Garthdee campus section UltrasonicMadness (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun MacDonald (rugby union)[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Scottish rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endure Pursuivant[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Other than mentions in databases of heraldry, I'm not seeing the level of RS needed to show that the standards of notability have been met. JMWt (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MV Linga[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines. Only references are primary. No independent coverage online. Clearfrienda 💬 01:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't many references that can be used other the primary sources from the owner/operator of the vessel, there is also this one though: https://www.faktaomfartyg.se/linga_2002.htm
I don't understand how MV Linga is the only Shetland Islands Council ferry article that has been getting brought up for editor issues, despite it being the same layout and similar text style to the rest of the ferry articles that I have made.
It would also be better to be more explicit with which changes would be good as it doesn't make sense that you're not allowed to make an article using references to the owners website. ZetShip (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to SIC Ferries. The most applicable guideline appears to be WP:NVEHICLES, which is an essay, and anyway pretty much defaults to WP:GNG for individual vehicles. Thus secondary sourcing beyond database entries would be needed here. Unfortunately the most I can find is a fairly routine news source [44]. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but unless more sources come up - such as an offline news feature on the vessel - as an WP:ATD I recommend redirect to SIC Ferries. ResonantDistortion 15:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grampian Flyers B.C.[edit]

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

This may meet a little notability but in the current state lacks sources. My research showed they are trivially mention in news articles and those, doesn't seem to be notability. Per SE, doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Redirect can also be better if there is any. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any potential redirects?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fáilte[edit]

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

Not sure if this violates WP:DICT (wikipedia is not a dictionary). While I see why we have Alba and éire, (Scottish Gaelic and Irish for Scotland and Ireland respectively) because it refers to a country, do we really need a dictionary for a specific world in another language? For anyone wondering, fáilte is the Irish word for welcome. JuniperChill (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep; make it more explicitly a disambig page. —Tamfang (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would turn it into a DAB, as Tamfang suggests. I concur with JuniperChill that it is not appropriate to keep as a dictionary-like entry, but since there are three Wikipedia pages containing the word, a DAB may be appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure how turning it into a disambig would work since the only other pages containing the word are Fáilte Ireland and Fáilte Towers. This may be an example of partial title match, but I am not sure if people simply refer it to 'Fáilte'. JuniperChill (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair cop. I won't be too sad if the page is deleted. Cnilep (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and do not redirect. The existence of a redirect would inhibit searching, and a DAB is no good since there's nothing but PTMs here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT), and this is English Wikipedia, not Irish – this is especially not a translating dictionary, nor a dictionary of all the world's languages. The greeting makes no sense as a redirect, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Nanetti[edit]

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

This footballer, who seems to have never played in the top 3 tiers in Italy or top 4 tiers in England, was deemed non-notable in an AfD discussion in 2020. I can't find signicant coverage in reliable sources published since then that would suggest he is now notable – per WP:GNG, as WP:NFOOTBALL is obsolete. The article content is not the same as the version deleted in 2020, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. Complex/Rational 17:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. seems okay, but not sure it's WP:SIGCOV, 2. per WP:THESUN, The Sun is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability, 3. very short, mostly quotes 4. short, mostly quotes, 5. a Wordpress blog – is the author a "subject-matter expert"?, 6. very short, mostly quotes, 7. short, mostly quotes, 8. one sentence mentions him, 9. per WP:DAILYMAIL, The Daily Mail is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability. So, of the nine sources you listed, one might be SIGCOV. Based on these sources alone, I don't see that Nannetti's a clearly significiant figure in English lower league football. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:, All many the sources from a variety of newspapers/news portals above are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider The Sun reliable for anything. GiantSnowman 08:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:, Even besides that, my other points still stand. Put together, even without the "tabloid newspapers", all the other sources from the newspapers and news portals like Gianlucadimzarzio show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed your sources prior to my !vote and nothing has changed my mind since. GiantSnowman 10:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article fail WP:SIRS, and the sources listed above none are independent significal coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the heavily-interview-based sources noted above are enough for GNG. Tabloids and other deprecated sources obviously are unacceptable in BLPs and should be removed on-sight. JoelleJay (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun is most certainly not reliable for BLPs, which require high-quality sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - my stance hasn't changed since my original source analysis at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Nanetti. I'm not convinced that any of the new sources in this discussion address the previous reasons for deletion. Those that offer more than trivial coverage are of questionable reliability as addressed several times above; The Sun, Daily Mail and Wordpress are not acceptable sources for BLPs and do not confer notability in any case. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Others[edit]


Wales[edit]

Star Hill Ponies[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 14:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]



Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/United_Kingdom&oldid=1225928479"