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

Points of interest related to United Kingdom on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

See also:

• Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland

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

Willie XO

Willie XO (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 musician. Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage. Majority of the references are just from mere blog talking about his music. It is also clearly written by the creator the subject paid for billboard advertising. This doesn’t even sound like a biography but a promotional work and majority of the contribution are from the creator suck puppet account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mark_Yung_Chukwuebuka user:MarkIblog for reference. Gabriel (talk to me ) 09:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Music, Nigeria, and United Kingdom. Gabriel (talk to me ) 09:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don’t see how this passes WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Looks very promotional too without imparting any useful information. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. No chart activity or notable label work, the usual namedropping of famous artists in attempt to establish notability, and promotional-sounding sources. Never mind the horribly written article with all proper names in lowercase. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 09:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't see how his music comfort you made itself notable before raising the artist to prominence, promotionally raising a music to stream 20m views on YouTube. The sources sounds advertorial —announcement of new album/release. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QI News

QI News (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)

Unsourced since 2007. Literary found nothing that passes WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Organizations, Internet, and United Kingdom. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find a single source (let alone a reliable one) mentioning this subject, so it definitely fails WP:GNG. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Variety Magazine mentioned it being in development once, in-passing [1]; that isn't substantial coverage. I doubt there is substantial coverage. Unsure about a redirect to QI; ComedyBox is a redlink. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to QI#Other_media -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orsett Heath Academy

Orsett Heath Academy (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 carried out WP:BEFORE for this school, which opened in 2020,and cannot see significant coverage in reliable sources which is not run of the mill. I think it is WP:TOOSOON for the school to be notable. Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe merge to Orsett Heath or Grays, Essex (as its not actually in Orsett Heath). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Trains (open access operator)

Virgin Trains (open access operator) (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)

Page already exists here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains MrBauer24 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, Virgin Trains is about a train operator that ceased in 2019, this is about a separate prospective operator with a different ownership structure. Virgin Trains was a franchised operator, if it comes to fruition, this will be an open access operator.In the same way that we have Flybe (1979-2020) and Flybe (2022–2023), same brand, but otherwise completely different. 00:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenfruy (talk • contribs)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, As said by Grenfuy, it is a different corporation.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗

00:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.

  🍗TheNuggeteer🍗

  00:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Merge as it does not appear the future incarnation is yet notable. Can be covered within the extant article until such time as notability changes and it can be spun out. Star Mississippi 01:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Virgin Trains per Star. If they win the bid we can consider a split then Jumpytoo Talk 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Grenfruy, or merge to a new overview article about the various uses of the Virgin brand in relation to UK railways. I Oppose merging to an existing article because none of those listed Virgin Trains (disambiguation) are suitable merge targets (based on those articles and the dab page). Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: For the same reasons as stated by Grenfuy as it is a different corporation. Rillington (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Given the new government's stated policy to renationalise the railways, is this proposal even valid any more? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blimus

Blimus (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 is quite old, band seems to be long-since defunct. No real evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. No hits, no awards, no label, etc. None of the links are archived on archive.org, two are just listings on the programme for a festival. The BBC interview is the most promising but an interview alone wouldn't support an article, and looking at the URL it seems like it was actually a promotional listing for that same festival, rather than a journalistic interview. Googling around it seems to mostly be Wikipedia mirrors at this point. Here2rewrite (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found some media coverage from 2010 and apparently they were active as late as 2011, but mostly it's just Wikipedia mirrors. --Un assiolo (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks OK to delete. That 2010 interview on Surrey Live consists mostly of deliberately nonsensical quotes by band member Graham Hill. Attention-getting, yes. Notable in the Wikipedia sense, no. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No sources found for this band, only two hits on the word in Gnews, one of which is in German, both are unrelated. Article now is thread-bare with minimal sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Granita (restaurant)

Granita (restaurant) (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)

WP:MILL defunct restaurant whose claim for inclusion is a WP:1E situation: the restaurant was known only for being the site of the Blair–Brown deal, an event in British political history which has nothing to do with the restaurant as such. Nothing else about the restaurant is in any way remarkable or notable. Sandstein 20:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Companies, and United Kingdom. Sandstein 20:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Simply because a notable meeting took place at this restaurant does not make it notable in and of itself.TH1980 (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Down to a Sunless Sea (Graham novel)

Down to a Sunless Sea (Graham novel) (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 novel by minor writer, no meaningful sourcing Orange Mike | Talk 22:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Ny Times reivew here [2] and a Kirkus Reviews item [3]. Probably just enough, two critical reviews. Oaktree b (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I know that some interpret WP:BOOKCRIT as meaning that any book that gets a couple of reviews is notable. First, whether or not a book gets reviewed often is a function of the degree to which the publisher does its promotion - publishers *push*, reviewers do not *pull*. Second, there shouldn't be much weight given to Kirkus reviews because Kirkus reviews everything they receive, and their reviews are intended to indicate whether libraries should add the book to their collections. Third, I know that the policy does not state that the reviews have to be positive, but there is some common sense that says that it makes a difference. Negative reviews of factual works may be useful but fiction is art, not science, so there really isn't the kind of back and forth of facts or conclusions that you have in the non-fiction world. In this case, the reviews clearly state that this is a mediocre novel, with cliche'd writing. To further deny notability, this was presumably being made into a movie but almost ten years have passed and it has not happened. I don't know how to find out if the movie concept is totally abandoned, but this is another strike against this book. (Note that movie studios snap up lots of books, mainly to keep anyone else from using them. It's actually making them into movies that should be noted.) Lamona (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I disagree with Lamona's arguments. Wikipedia does not only contain articles on books with good reviews and a movie. I can see why Lamona wouldn't want to add this book to their bookshelf, but critical reviews are the definition of notability for a book, and anything else is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Toughpigs (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You will need at least one more "non-trivial work", IMO, because the existence of a Kirkus review is pretty much the definition of trivial. Kirkus reviews every book coming out of a standard publisher, and the reviews are brief. They also are aimed at predicting popularity rather than cultural import. I ran through the EBSCO database and didn't find any. It's made more difficult because the title "Down to a sunless sea" has been used many times by different authors, including Neil Gaiman. I was able to learn that David Graham is a pseudonym of Evan Wright, an RAF pilot who claimed to have had psychic experiences. (Charman, R. (2017) ‘Research Note: The Gloveless Ghost of Air Gunner Stoker and Pilot Officer Douglas Worley’s Apparent Premonition of Death: Two Very Baffling and Disturbing Cases’, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 81(3), pp. 194–204.) He wrote under other names as well. I'll add this to the talk page. Lamona (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've also found reviews of the book in the Buffalo News and the South Bend Tribune. This should be plenty to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: I had originally created this article, and had to look up when. It was probably one of my first creations here, since I created it in January, 2004, or more than twenty years ago. Since then, dozens of other editors have contributed hundreds of additions and corrections to the article. If the book wasn't interesting to others I doubt it would have been regularly updated and revised. I concur with ToughPigs, I think Lamona's desire to "cancel" this article is more of a case that he does not like it than that it is not notworthy or qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia. As to the allegation that some critics consider it a "mediocre novel with cliche'd writing," first, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it, but it could be they do not like the subject matter: the story begins with the first-person narrative of a British airline pilot on a lay over in a bankrupt, third world country that is so impoverished that its neighbor country to the north imposed the death penalty for smuggling gasoline to it, and starving mobs try to rush airplanes leaving the country to someplace better, with military troops having to shoot them. The "third world country" in question? The United States after it exhausted its oil reserves. As the book progresses, things go from bad to worse. While later real-world events proved the scenario unlikely, I believe the book is a reasonable look into a dystopian New York City and how if the world is balanced on a knife's edge of sanity, any event can trigger a catastrophe. Not every book of this sort of dystopian future is necessarily going to get positive reviews, I think it is a relevant example of the zeitgeist of the period and how some people thought the 1970s oil crises might end. For these reasons, I urge retention of the review.
  
  "Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."
  
  Thank you.
  Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least four reliable sources review the book. That's above NBOOK and GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of recurring Skins characters

List of recurring Skins characters (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)

A non-notable fork of List of Skins characters. We don't need more than one character list for this television show, and there isn't WP:SIGCOV for these unremarkable characters. Jontesta (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Skins characters. There is no need for two separate articles for main and recurring characters of a television show, when a combined article should suffice.⁂CountHacker (talk) 02:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Skins characters - Many of the reoccurring characters listed here that actually had any importance are actually already also covered at the main character article, making this a rather redundant spinout article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who items

List of Doctor Who items (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 have WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of objects from a television program, such as "Celery". A lot of this is WP:OR, both in the content, and the arbitrary way in which non-notable objects are selected for inclusion. Jontesta (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget items in the list and Delete list.

-Celery to Fifth Doctor

-Chameleon Circuit to TARDIS

-Hand of Omega to Remembrance of the Daleks

-A Journal of Impossible Things to Human Nature (Doctor Who)

-Key to Time to Doctor Who season 16

-Matrix to Gallifrey

-Delete severed hand due to lack of discernible name that can differentiate it from the concept of a severed hand

-Delete Squareness Gun due to being non-notable and lacking a redirect target (Maybe Jack Harkness?)

-Sonic Screwdriver has an article already

-Superphone lacks a redirect and not really an important concept, delete

-TARDIS has an article

-Time Scoop to The Five Doctors

Only objects I'm iffy on are Eye of Harmony, Psychic Paper, and Vortex Manipulator due to all three being important recurring elements in the series that lack a viable redirect. Maybe The Doctor (Doctor Who) for Psychic Paper, Gallifrey for Eye of Harmony, and Jack Harkness for Vortex Manipulator? I'm not sure.

Either way, this list is, per nom, very CRUFTy, and I've honestly been meaning to getting rid of it myself. I will note per nom that most of these objects are at least the recurring (Meaning they're not really "non-notable") but there definitely is a lack of inclusion criteria and not much showcasing the list needs to be a separate thing from the other viable redirect targets for most if not all of the entities. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Proposal of Pokelego999 looks good. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no discussion in the article about why the items as a group are notable. It is an indiscriminate list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Zxcvbnm. The list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and the redirects can be pointed to new targets per Pokelego999. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Clifford

Nick Clifford (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)

Notability concerns. The article is about a British professor of geography; no secondary sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (no opinion yet). This Nick Clifford appears to be Nicholas J. Clifford, author of research works involving river bed sediment. He should not be confused with Nicholas R. Clifford, a sinologist who appears to be notable (William R. Kenan Professor at Middlebury College). It doesn't help that I keep finding NRC's books listed as being by NJC. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. There is a weak case to be made for WP:PROF#C1, with a few triple-digit citation counts in Google Scholar. But I can't find any sources that verify even the basic times and dates of his employment, and without that it is difficult to write even an adequate stub that passes WP:V. (To be clear: through affiliations listed on his publications one can place him in certain universities at certain dates, but nothing with a bigger picture of his career.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This archive URL of his profile from Loughborough has Cliffords employment history: [4] - I've also updated the citation in the article to include the archive-url. Furthermore I've identified and added two SCOPUS profiles including [5]. ResonantDis_tortion 21:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Noted academic.... Full Prof at KCL and Loughborough till retirement 2020. Lots of cited works (including Key methods in geography Cited by 1500+) (Perhaps searching GS under NJ Clifford, Nicholas Clifford (and checking is the same Clifford) adds up to substantial pubs... Technical clear Pass of WP:prof (8) by virtue of being (formerly) the editor of Progress in Physical Geography. Added refs, including editorials in the journal, substantiating this (Msrasnw (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Is the River Science Wikidot source reliable? I had assumed not, but on further review it does seem to be a closed-wiki with some editorial control. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lottie Tomlinson

Lottie Tomlinson (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 believe this person fails WP:BIO, only sources I could find are passing mentions related to her more famous brother Louis Tomlinson or promotional tabloid stuff. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, and United Kingdom. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very much a WP:NOTINHERITED case here. Nate • (chatter) 23:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:ENT, and WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage of her as a model nor makeup artist. Also, WP:NINI. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I haven't seen any reliable sources that discuss her career as a model or makeup artist in detail. Maybe this information could be added to her brother's article, but it doesn't seem like enough for a whole separate page on Wikipedia. Waqar💬 18:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I mean the content is not super important stuff like articles about footballers who play a few games in a top league, but there's a *lot* of news coverage about her out there.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Assembly Line

The Assembly Line (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 sources, fails WP:NCORP. A search is tough due to the generic name, but what I could find was only trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree, it fails WP:NCORP, and I too could not find any sources, all I saw were LinkedIn, fandom, and this IGN list of games that only includes three of them. The fandom page has literally just copied everything from this page. It even copied the stub mark. I searched archive.org too, couldn't find anything. MK at your service. 03:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, and all of the above. Non-notable video game company, despite its age. TH1980 (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree as per nom and MKsLifeInANutshell, nothing I can find meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grapevine (disk magazine)

Grapevine (disk magazine) (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 struggling to find sources that discuss Grapevine in depth. Per the article's own description, it was "a [d]isk magazine for the Commodore Amiga published by the [d]emo scene group LSD." (my bold emphasis added). A publication by none other than those involved in the demoscene would have a high bar to clear in order to count as notable. Predictably, the few sources I can dig up refer to it passingly, and some old Amiga magazines did look at Grapevine, but from what I saw, they were reviewing the disk magazine's issues, not writing about its importance or influence in the Amiga community. The only thing that can save this article is if others happen to find more information about Grapevine, and in depth, which I could not. FreeMediaKid$ 23:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Computing. FreeMediaKid$ 23:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete due to insignificant coverage Vorann Gencov (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Liverpool F.C. matches in international competitions

List of Liverpool F.C. matches in international competitions (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 is an unnecessary and redundant collection of matches that Liverpool have played in international competition. An article outlining the club's record in Europe already exists, we do not need a list of every single match. Considering also that the reader can learn what happened in those matches from the equivalent season articles AND from seasonal competition pages. I understand having smaller lists for clubs that don't usually play in Europe. For example, Burnley's article contains only a few matches, each of which are especially notable. But like most big English clubs, Liverpool play in Europe almost every single season; making most matches almost as notable as any domestic match. A discussion to delete this list reached no consensus just over two years ago now; but I truely believe redundant lists like this have no place on Wikipedia. Idiosincrático (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, United Kingdom, and England. Idiosincrático (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Due to the club's relevance worldwide, I don't see any problems with a list of international matches existing. This is complementary information and can be easily verified. Svartner (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's also the exact sort of information you used to buy specialty football encyclopedias for. SportingFlyer T·C 14:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Liverpool F.C. in international football, I don't know why we need two separate articles, there is plenty of room in the main one to house the list. You say in your nomination, unnecessary and redundant collection of matches I completely disagree with that, further more, the information in the main article clearly shows it's not redundant and appears to be historically necessary. You haven't even posted any policy based argument in your nomination either. Govvy (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is an absolutely valid WP:SPLIT. Most teams will list all of their European matches on their "X team in Europe" page, so deleting this would basically mean that the most followed clubs wouldn't be able to have information about the matches they've played. I don't support a merge, either - the parent article is almost 100Kb as it stands. SportingFlyer T·C 15:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect per Govvy. GiantSnowman 20:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't merge. The proposed merge target is already long, already has a bunch of tables in it, and it's a FA. People who want this information can easily just click through to this article; it's not going to become some kind of weird content fork. There's no reason to merge this. -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and no not merge. The featured article Liverpool F.C. in international football covers this topic adequately and in an encyclopedic way, but a list of every match played ever is a clear violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As such, a merge would not improve the encylopedic value of that FA, but just bloat it with unencyclopedic content. This is an encyclopedia, not a football fandom site. If this table is added to the FA article then it will leave that article at risk of not meeting the FA criteria by having a clear WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not at all a violation of NOTDIRECTORY, every club has these and they're exactly what you'd find in the back of old footballing encyclopaedias. It makes no sense to delete this only because it's large enough to have its own page. SportingFlyer T·C 14:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain why you think it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY? This isn't a directory. That would be if it emulated the yellow pages, or listed upcoming TV broadcasting, or something. These are historical events. -- asilvering (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OSE, just because other articles violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:NOTSTATS too, that does not mean this article should too. An entire list of hundreds of matches is a clear violation of these both, as it's entirely a stats article for every result which violates Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated. We're not a database mirror or fandom site. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The encyclopedic merit is self-evident, as I've mentioned before. SportingFlyer T·C 20:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was leaning towards delete, especially as I nominated this list for deletion the first time around. But after reading SportingFlyer's reasoning above I think this list should be kept. He's right, these statistics are what you'd find in the back of old football encyclopedias. Indeed, they're in the back of many of my Liverpool books. I don't think the list should be merged with the main article, as it will be far too big then. A separate list is a better solution. NapHit (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The first AFD was closed as "No consensus" and right now, that looks how the 2nd AFD might close as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ‘’Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory or repository of links’’ as per WP:LISTCRITERIA. Frankly, I don’t see the need to keep or merge a list of matches as it does not add anything valuable to Liverpool F.C. in international football. If a user was to check , they would also find that no other club has any similar articles on the topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorann Gencov (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If a club has appeared in Europe, the list of their European matches exist somewhere, whether on the club page, the club in European football page, or in Liverpool's case, a validly split page dedicated to the topic. I don't understand how other users are coming to the logical fallacy that this is a directory. SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply @Joseph2302: you should type into google is an encyclopaedia a database Wikipedia itself is certainly a database, where as the policy what wikipedia is not, saying it's not a database is really false to itself. Wikipedia at times is a joke in a way, I always wonder if it will last as it always asking for lots of donations! :/ Regardless and back to topic, there are millions of articles on wikipedia that are collective data. Regardless in cell form as numbers, matches of football, baseball, Ice hockey, NFL, it's full of it. You can't single this one out. Nope, you'd be deleting every page on wikipedia if you want to go that route. Govvy (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live Art Development Agency

Live Art Development Agency (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)

Sources not passing WP:ORGIND and I believe it fails WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As well the 2011 piece by Lyn Gardner of The Guardian which is referenced in the article, searches also find a 2019 piece by the same author. It is partly an interview with the co-founder of LADA, but starts with the writer's overview of the Live Art field and evaluation of LADA's role in it. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The following doesn't contribute to notability here, but I will also note that the present article doesn't mention organisational controversy during 2023 (news item discussing the closure threat and petition). AllyD (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick google scholar search https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22live+art+development+agency%22&btnG= indicates multiple quality sources referencing the organisation and its significance in global and UK live art, including books https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wyJHEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA12&dq=%22live+art+development+agency%22&ots=M7sejwMOu5&sig=66lY7cxWvj0E_0jIdmuCmVU5DN8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22live%20art%20development%20agency%22&f=false and peer review articles dating back to the early 2000s DrawingDays (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote against deletion. While the article has issues, they aren't based on notability. It is clearly a well-cited and long running organisation that is important the UK cultural scene. The article could more clearly lay out the history and challenges of the org, as mentioned above, but this doesn't warrant deletion. genericxz (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominator has invoked WP:NCORP, however from this link [6] we see that the subject is a charity, therefore WP:NONPROFIT applies. It is not necessary for the subject to meet the more stringent guidelines put in place for corporate entities. On this basis - in particular including from the arguments above - there does appear sufficient coverage and citations of the activities of this charity to have a reasonable presumption of notability. ResonantDis_tortion 22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

77 Armoured Engineer Squadron

77 Armoured Engineer Squadron (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 of the article does not seem to be notable. No references are provided. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Gill

Stuart Gill (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iceland, Malta, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Important Ambassador key to negotiations on the completion of the EU’s Single Market. KEEP Cantab12 (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if not notable then this list List of high commissioners of the United Kingdom to Malta is just useless. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree. The list is not useless even if not all office holders on the list are inherently notable. The ones with knighthoods/damehoods would be considered notable, almost by default. Uhooep (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BIO. The sole keep vote fails to demonstrate existence of sources to meet GNG or WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Nevin (diplomat)

Michael Nevin (diplomat) (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iceland, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I nominated quite a few of the diplomat articles I previously created for deletion, but I left this one out as there was coverage of his time in Malawi in the Nyasa Times and other Malawian sources. : [7], [8], [9], [10] [11]. May be more available. Unsure if this fails GNG. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delight Mobile

Delight Mobile (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 is a bundled nomination of five articles on UK MVNOs failing the notability guidelines for companies/products. They are part of a larger set of seven created by the same author in October 2011: two have since been deleted, one through PROD and the other through AfD.

The other four are:

• Dalya Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dialog Vizz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Now PAYG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stan Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rather than continue the slow trickle of individual deletions, I figure it makes more sense to discuss them all at once. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Kingdom, and England. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The few existing sources:

• this for Dialog Vizz
• this for Now

Are anyone of these affiliated? Have google searches been done? Mrfoogles (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are barely-rehashed product release announcements – textbook trivial coverage that doesn't contribute to notability. – Teratix ₵ 14:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Parker (police officer)

Edward Parker (police officer) (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 meet criteria of notability Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Seem to be police officers all over the world with this name... I get hits from the US, Australia and elsewhere, but nothing for this person. I'm not seeing more than a one or two line biography here, unsure of the notability. Lack of sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Coverage here in the Sydney Morning Herald from 1930 including biographical information [13]. A google books search focused on "Edward Parker" and "Special Branch" does identify a number of hits ([14]). There is potential for meeting notability guidelines therefore as an WP:ATD I suggest moving to draftspace for incubation. ResonantDis_tortion 10:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning toward delete based on discussion so far, but at least a little more discussion would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

• Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom/Article alerts, a bot-maintained listing of a variety of changes affecting United Kingdom related pages including deletion discussions

Archie Vaughan

Archie Vaughan (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 what exactly makes this guy notable? Being the son of Michael Vaughan, is all I can tell. He hasn't played cricket at a senior level and hasn't done anything of note in cricket to warrant inclusion. No amount of WP:ROUTINE refbombs can hide that he is a WP:GNG fail. AA (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AA (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MIRACL (security firm)

MIRACL (security firm) (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 fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. The IBTimes article about them discontinuing a product is seemingly the only reliable, secondary source in the article right now. A cursory search hasn't turned up more coverage. Brandon (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and United Kingdom. Brandon (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Wimbledon

Radio Wimbledon (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)

There’s a shortage of independent reliable sources on the page about the topic which show that the standards of inclusion per the WP:GNG. There’s nothing much I can find otherwise. JMWt (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and England. JMWt (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as an ATD we could redirect to Wimbledon Championships where much of the content is replicated. My difficulty is that this could be misleading (Wimbledon is a place outside of the tennis championship) and it seems an unlikely search term. JMWt (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keji Giwa

Keji Giwa (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)

Business person not eligible for an article. Media sources used in the article are from blogs which are unreliable. A before search brought press statements issued by their business entities with passing mention of them. others found are interviews written in news article formats which extensively quoted their onw words Ednabrenze (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don’t see anything to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Promotional and blog sourced BLP. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orsett Heath Academy

Orsett Heath Academy (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 carried out WP:BEFORE for this school, which opened in 2020,and cannot see significant coverage in reliable sources which is not run of the mill. I think it is WP:TOOSOON for the school to be notable. Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe merge to Orsett Heath or Grays, Essex (as its not actually in Orsett Heath). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blimus

Blimus (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 is quite old, band seems to be long-since defunct. No real evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. No hits, no awards, no label, etc. None of the links are archived on archive.org, two are just listings on the programme for a festival. The BBC interview is the most promising but an interview alone wouldn't support an article, and looking at the URL it seems like it was actually a promotional listing for that same festival, rather than a journalistic interview. Googling around it seems to mostly be Wikipedia mirrors at this point. Here2rewrite (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found some media coverage from 2010 and apparently they were active as late as 2011, but mostly it's just Wikipedia mirrors. --Un assiolo (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks OK to delete. That 2010 interview on Surrey Live consists mostly of deliberately nonsensical quotes by band member Graham Hill. Attention-getting, yes. Notable in the Wikipedia sense, no. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No sources found for this band, only two hits on the word in Gnews, one of which is in German, both are unrelated. Article now is thread-bare with minimal sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Kinross

Robin Kinross (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 this even pass WP:GNG? The current references are certainly nowhere near up to scratch. One hit on Google News. Uhooep (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Seems to be multiple sources spanning several decades [15], [16], [17]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Wikipedia Library lists 375 entries either about or mentioning him, including book reviews and an entry about him in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies. Easily meets our notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Payne

Sebastian Payne (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)

Notability of the individual is questionable, and as I've noted before his article is written like a resume. PlateOfToast (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Probably passes AUTHOR, a few book reviews found [18], [19], [20], but the sourcing used now in the article isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep quite a well known figure, has been a guest on Question Time (TV programme) for example and I think he meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria of being an 'important figure' as his career changes have been reported on independently.[21]. Agree the article reads like a resume though, needs work. Orange sticker (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Clifford

Nick Clifford (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)

Notability concerns. The article is about a British professor of geography; no secondary sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (no opinion yet). This Nick Clifford appears to be Nicholas J. Clifford, author of research works involving river bed sediment. He should not be confused with Nicholas R. Clifford, a sinologist who appears to be notable (William R. Kenan Professor at Middlebury College). It doesn't help that I keep finding NRC's books listed as being by NJC. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. There is a weak case to be made for WP:PROF#C1, with a few triple-digit citation counts in Google Scholar. But I can't find any sources that verify even the basic times and dates of his employment, and without that it is difficult to write even an adequate stub that passes WP:V. (To be clear: through affiliations listed on his publications one can place him in certain universities at certain dates, but nothing with a bigger picture of his career.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This archive URL of his profile from Loughborough has Cliffords employment history: [22] - I've also updated the citation in the article to include the archive-url. Furthermore I've identified and added two SCOPUS profiles including [23]. ResonantDis_tortion 21:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Noted academic.... Full Prof at KCL and Loughborough till retirement 2020. Lots of cited works (including Key methods in geography Cited by 1500+) (Perhaps searching GS under NJ Clifford, Nicholas Clifford (and checking is the same Clifford) adds up to substantial pubs... Technical clear Pass of WP:prof (8) by virtue of being (formerly) the editor of Progress in Physical Geography. Added refs, including editorials in the journal, substantiating this (Msrasnw (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Is the River Science Wikidot source reliable? I had assumed not, but on further review it does seem to be a closed-wiki with some editorial control. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Tower

Stuart Tower (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 do not think that these claims are enough to confer notability. Otherwise, its simply a very unremarkable block of flats, with all that I could find being 'property' listings & the like.TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Crime, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Wcquidditch:, we were too efficient ;-) Reverted my close of this. Star Mississippi 14:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've now deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Tower as a G6 so we stop E/Cing all over the place. @TheLongTone you did nothing wrong. I think Twinkle hiccuped. Star Mississippi 14:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I think it was Twinkle, altho I do have fat fingers.TheLongTone (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Heavily WP:COATRACKing a set of murders/suspicious deaths, but I'm pretty sure the building didn't kill them. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing notable about this building; the article is a WP:COATRACK for WP:RUMORS about certain of its occupants. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Flintoff

Rocky Flintoff (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 cricketer, who hasn't played at first-class/List A/Twenty20 level. Under-19 cricketers are deemed non-notable and most of his coverage seems to come as a result of his famous father, so WP:NOTINHERITED applies. An article can be created once he makes his senior debut. AA (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. AA (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG easily. Do we have an SNG being abused to deny wider community norms here? Where does it say under 19 cricketers are always non notable. This is no ordinary cricketer here but the son of a cricket icon. Easily passes notability standards and his coverage reflects his own efforts and not his Dad’s. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So basically your whole argument is WP:INHERITED. PS: I don't abuse anything on this site. WP:NCRIC says: "...cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level...". AA (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And GNG requires 2 sources and outranks NCRIC Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No response on WP:NOTINHERITED, which this clearly is... AA (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh you twist and twist but the coverage is about him Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unclear that he passes GNG - County 2nd XI would not generally make GNG, no major honours (per WP:SPORTSPERSON). Of citations, overwhelming majority are framed in terms of his father (WP:NOTINHERITED) - e.g. "Inside Freddie Flintoff's life with his adorable family...", Biggest test for Flintoff's talented sons...", "Freddie Flintoff's son, Rocky,...", "Andrew Flintoff's son makes...". He may well progress beyond county cricket into first class & intl - but he hasn't yet WP:LAGGING. Hemmers (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widespread coverage across the world in the BBC, Sky Sports, The Times, Malaysia Sun, Times of India, News18, The Independent, The Telegraph, Wisden, ESPNCricinfo and the list goes on. Yes the articles often mention his father in the headline or the article themselves but that is going to be the case his entire life unless he manages to totally surpass what his father achieved which is a high bar to set. The articles themselves are about him, not his father, and as such he easily passes the coverage test. Shrug02 20:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A lot of convenient ignoring of WP:NOTINHERITED going on here. If his father was Joe Bloggs, a plumber from Cleethorpes, there wouldn't be any coverage. I might start adding club cricketers with loads of coverage in county newspapers. AA (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We shall never know as his father isn't "Joe Bloggs, a plumber from Cleethorpes". But many of the players selected to play for England under 19s get media coverage despite not having famous fathers and also I would think that whoever broke a record set by Andrew Flintoff would at the very least get coverage in and around the Lancashire area and probably further afield too. But again we will never know as that isn't what happened, it was his son who broke the record. Shrug02 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But the Second XI Championship has never been a high enough level of cricket to be deemed notable. Its matches hold no status, and as such are and have been considered since I've been here (2010) to be non-notable. Same with Under-19 cricket; there are countless Under-19 cricketers who have been deleted over the years, because that level of cricket also isn't notable and carries no match status. Just like many associate cricketers who have played T20I cricket aren't notable... AA (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We are not an indiscriminate collection of any and all cricket trivia: WP:OFFCRIC. AA (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And again you put your sng over the gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OFFCRIC is a depreciated guideline that doesn't overrule WP:GNG. If someone has significant coverage to pass WP:GNG then they are entitled to an article regardless of the level of cricket they have played. Similarly, just because someone has played in a certain high level of cricket, that doesn't man they're automatically notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep yes he gets more coverage as the son of Andrew Flintoff, but he has exceptional levels of coverage about him/his career compared to most others at his level. And the coverage of him passes WP:GNG. Just because most articles have half an article about him then half an article about his father, that does not invalidate the coverage about him in these articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• And as there is coverage about Rocky Flintoff and his cricket career, then WP:NOTINHERITED is not correct assertion in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a blanket ban on non-FC/LA/T20 players... otherwise we'll end up with minor counties cricketers, club cricketers, school cricketers, etc, who just so happen to do something in a form of cricket that doesn't carry status and has no notability here. Matches that carry status should be the gold standard for inclusion, especially after we have spent years defending our strict inclusion criteria from a certain Belgian and his friends who thought we were lax. Especially when articles like this lack quality and are refbombed the hell out of. 34 references for an article this size, seriously? AA (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should 100% not have a blanket ban on anything- if an article meets WP:GNG, it can be included on Wikipedia. People can play a minor match like Flintoff Jr and get more coverage than someone playing 40 first-class matches in a country or historic time period with little coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Spartaz. Easy WP:GNG pass. First-class/List A/Twenty20 standard is irrelevant as both cricket guidelines WP:CRIN and WP:OFFICIALCRICKET have been deprecated. 2001:861:3B89:90D0:2DB1:3B21:F04B:1070 (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• An an IP knows this how? Quack. AA (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Vorley

Eve Vorley (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)

BLP1E. Football club directors are not inherently notable and by coverage this is a pure BLP1E as the appointment of a porn/glamour performer caused some noise at the time. Beyond that, nothing. Not by her real name or alias Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:ENT, and WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage of her as a former glamour model, pornographic actress, nor film director. She being an English football club director is considered to be WP:ONEEVENT. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to David_Sullivan_(businessman)#Personal_life: where she is mentioned; merge what's necessary. Not opposed to keep, given existing coverage -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 15:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to David_Sullivan_(businessman)#Personal_life: Subject lacks the needed sustained coverage to meet the WP:GNG and does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I don't see a problem with the article, there is enough online although it's heavily WP:TABLOID. Govvy (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poppy Morgan

Poppy Morgan (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)

How has this survived the raised expectations around porn performers. The sourcing is well below GNG for a BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a few years ago, a group of users has managed to create a consensus that states that pornographic entertainers are basically not notable for what they do (their awards do not count, the coverage from the industry does not count, etc.). OK. But this actress might meet GNG: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/hull-porn-star-poppy-morgan-2877489 ; https://www.anorak.co.uk/377943/celebrities/hull-mps-want-page-3-banned-but-the-official-brochure-says-poppy-morgan-is-part-of-the-city-culture.html ; https://www.expressandstar.com/news/2006/11/23/porn-star-to-teach-dancers/ as these sources mention that her notability as porn star exists outside WP and outside the industry. At least, that's how I see things. And I consider her notable enough to have a page. If any ATD exists, feel free to redirect. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for proving my point with non reliable sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're welcome. Thank you for providing a link showing these sources are non-reliable according to a clear consensus. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seriously? Ha ha ha

  so a tabloid. A short article with no byline on an online news source with no indication of fact checking and a very short piece on a local news sources that allows user submitted content that has no byline. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's what I thought. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So you agree they are not RSs! Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That was not what I meant. "ha ha ha" - so a tabloid is not exactly what I would call a thoughtful reply containing a link nor referring to a clear consensus. But here's a link and a consensus. Wp:Tabloid states that well-established tabloids should be used with care. The Mirror is a well-established tabloid. I wouldn't call it plainly unreliable (and if the other 2 aren't bylined, this one is). These are not great sources, especially the other 2, but read my !vote and you might understand what I mean. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Tabloids are not reliable sources for the gng but may be used with caution to flesh out an article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lottie Tomlinson

Lottie Tomlinson (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 believe this person fails WP:BIO, only sources I could find are passing mentions related to her more famous brother Louis Tomlinson or promotional tabloid stuff. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, and United Kingdom. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very much a WP:NOTINHERITED case here. Nate • (chatter) 23:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:ENT, and WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage of her as a model nor makeup artist. Also, WP:NINI. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I haven't seen any reliable sources that discuss her career as a model or makeup artist in detail. Maybe this information could be added to her brother's article, but it doesn't seem like enough for a whole separate page on Wikipedia. Waqar💬 18:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I mean the content is not super important stuff like articles about footballers who play a few games in a top league, but there's a *lot* of news coverage about her out there.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Liverpool F.C. matches in international competitions

List of Liverpool F.C. matches in international competitions (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 is an unnecessary and redundant collection of matches that Liverpool have played in international competition. An article outlining the club's record in Europe already exists, we do not need a list of every single match. Considering also that the reader can learn what happened in those matches from the equivalent season articles AND from seasonal competition pages. I understand having smaller lists for clubs that don't usually play in Europe. For example, Burnley's article contains only a few matches, each of which are especially notable. But like most big English clubs, Liverpool play in Europe almost every single season; making most matches almost as notable as any domestic match. A discussion to delete this list reached no consensus just over two years ago now; but I truely believe redundant lists like this have no place on Wikipedia. Idiosincrático (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, United Kingdom, and England. Idiosincrático (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Due to the club's relevance worldwide, I don't see any problems with a list of international matches existing. This is complementary information and can be easily verified. Svartner (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's also the exact sort of information you used to buy specialty football encyclopedias for. SportingFlyer T·C 14:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Liverpool F.C. in international football, I don't know why we need two separate articles, there is plenty of room in the main one to house the list. You say in your nomination, unnecessary and redundant collection of matches I completely disagree with that, further more, the information in the main article clearly shows it's not redundant and appears to be historically necessary. You haven't even posted any policy based argument in your nomination either. Govvy (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is an absolutely valid WP:SPLIT. Most teams will list all of their European matches on their "X team in Europe" page, so deleting this would basically mean that the most followed clubs wouldn't be able to have information about the matches they've played. I don't support a merge, either - the parent article is almost 100Kb as it stands. SportingFlyer T·C 15:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect per Govvy. GiantSnowman 20:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't merge. The proposed merge target is already long, already has a bunch of tables in it, and it's a FA. People who want this information can easily just click through to this article; it's not going to become some kind of weird content fork. There's no reason to merge this. -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and no not merge. The featured article Liverpool F.C. in international football covers this topic adequately and in an encyclopedic way, but a list of every match played ever is a clear violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As such, a merge would not improve the encylopedic value of that FA, but just bloat it with unencyclopedic content. This is an encyclopedia, not a football fandom site. If this table is added to the FA article then it will leave that article at risk of not meeting the FA criteria by having a clear WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not at all a violation of NOTDIRECTORY, every club has these and they're exactly what you'd find in the back of old footballing encyclopaedias. It makes no sense to delete this only because it's large enough to have its own page. SportingFlyer T·C 14:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain why you think it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY? This isn't a directory. That would be if it emulated the yellow pages, or listed upcoming TV broadcasting, or something. These are historical events. -- asilvering (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OSE, just because other articles violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:NOTSTATS too, that does not mean this article should too. An entire list of hundreds of matches is a clear violation of these both, as it's entirely a stats article for every result which violates Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated. We're not a database mirror or fandom site. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The encyclopedic merit is self-evident, as I've mentioned before. SportingFlyer T·C 20:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was leaning towards delete, especially as I nominated this list for deletion the first time around. But after reading SportingFlyer's reasoning above I think this list should be kept. He's right, these statistics are what you'd find in the back of old football encyclopedias. Indeed, they're in the back of many of my Liverpool books. I don't think the list should be merged with the main article, as it will be far too big then. A separate list is a better solution. NapHit (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The first AFD was closed as "No consensus" and right now, that looks how the 2nd AFD might close as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ‘’Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory or repository of links’’ as per WP:LISTCRITERIA. Frankly, I don’t see the need to keep or merge a list of matches as it does not add anything valuable to Liverpool F.C. in international football. If a user was to check , they would also find that no other club has any similar articles on the topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorann Gencov (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If a club has appeared in Europe, the list of their European matches exist somewhere, whether on the club page, the club in European football page, or in Liverpool's case, a validly split page dedicated to the topic. I don't understand how other users are coming to the logical fallacy that this is a directory. SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply @Joseph2302: you should type into google is an encyclopaedia a database Wikipedia itself is certainly a database, where as the policy what wikipedia is not, saying it's not a database is really false to itself. Wikipedia at times is a joke in a way, I always wonder if it will last as it always asking for lots of donations! :/ Regardless and back to topic, there are millions of articles on wikipedia that are collective data. Regardless in cell form as numbers, matches of football, baseball, Ice hockey, NFL, it's full of it. You can't single this one out. Nope, you'd be deleting every page on wikipedia if you want to go that route. Govvy (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live Art Development Agency

Live Art Development Agency (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)

Sources not passing WP:ORGIND and I believe it fails WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As well the 2011 piece by Lyn Gardner of The Guardian which is referenced in the article, searches also find a 2019 piece by the same author. It is partly an interview with the co-founder of LADA, but starts with the writer's overview of the Live Art field and evaluation of LADA's role in it. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The following doesn't contribute to notability here, but I will also note that the present article doesn't mention organisational controversy during 2023 (news item discussing the closure threat and petition). AllyD (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick google scholar search https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22live+art+development+agency%22&btnG= indicates multiple quality sources referencing the organisation and its significance in global and UK live art, including books https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wyJHEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA12&dq=%22live+art+development+agency%22&ots=M7sejwMOu5&sig=66lY7cxWvj0E_0jIdmuCmVU5DN8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22live%20art%20development%20agency%22&f=false and peer review articles dating back to the early 2000s DrawingDays (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote against deletion. While the article has issues, they aren't based on notability. It is clearly a well-cited and long running organisation that is important the UK cultural scene. The article could more clearly lay out the history and challenges of the org, as mentioned above, but this doesn't warrant deletion. genericxz (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominator has invoked WP:NCORP, however from this link [24] we see that the subject is a charity, therefore WP:NONPROFIT applies. It is not necessary for the subject to meet the more stringent guidelines put in place for corporate entities. On this basis - in particular including from the arguments above - there does appear sufficient coverage and citations of the activities of this charity to have a reasonable presumption of notability. ResonantDis_tortion 22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith Data Systems Challenge Trophy

Zenith Data Systems Challenge Trophy (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 individual pre-season friendly club match. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, England, Argentina, and Florida. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge – with 1989–90 Arsenal F.C. season#Results as WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It would help to add to the Arsenal season, however that would negate any redirect to Club Atlético Independiente the other team in it. Maybe adding a sponsorship section on Zenith Data Systems with a snippet there? I am still not sure of a redirect. But there are sources, a few on the article, one Guardian source in the external link. Maybe some other sources out there. It could be possible for some basic GNG pass here. Not sure know. Guess I am running at an abstain vote here. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Doesn't merit a redirect. GiantSnowman 19:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Phillips (English cricketer, born 2003)

Joe Phillips (English cricketer, born 2003) (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)

Subject person played only 1 List-A and 2 First class match. Does WP:GNG surpasses WP:NCRICK? Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Twinkle1990: - can I just point out NSPORT states that "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline...) - so all NSPORT is saying that people who meet those criteria are considered notable, but not meeting those criteria doesn't automatically make them non-notable. Mdann52 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets GNG. Mdann52 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Doesn't appear on the cricket delsort - tryingto add that again first Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• At worst this is an obvious redirect to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players where his name needs to be added. A note should also be added, as has been done for others. Beyond that I have no particular view here - there are some sources, but not so many. I suspect he is likely to be covered in others as well fwiw Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players. He does not meet GNG - this is the one qualifying source. Gloscricket is obviously not independent coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the delsort issues, more eyes won't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but he may be notable in the future, i.e. WP:NOTNOW. SWinxy (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SWinxy, in this case, wouldn't a redirect be more appropriate? That way, if he becomes notable in the future, someone won't have to start the article from scratch. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, borderline decision but given the rhythms and vagaries of the English county cricket season we are approaching the part where younger players are used to a greater extent, precisely the time this page will be useful to people who follow the game to refer to. Hildreth Gazzard (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double Eleven (company)

Double Eleven (company) (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 failed to find WP:SIGCOV besides simple announcements, sponsored articles, and primary source interviews. This indicates a failure of WP:ORGTRIV, which excludes "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage". Notability is also not inherited from the games themselves. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Subject to a previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Eleven, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This two are quite good, covering the company's workplace practices. Routine coverage from major RS is also fairly regular but not trivial. I think the recent news surrounding Prison Architect 2 ([25]) may also count as SIGCOV for the studio. OceanHok (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The developer appears notable enough to be mentione somewhere as an WP:ATD. Also related to Pneuma insidermedia.com IgelRM (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There is enough coverage about the company itself to amount to WP:SIGCOV. The two articles presented above by OceanHok are particularly in-depth. The company has also received a lot of less-in-depth coverage about their games. While notability is not inherited, these articles do focus more on the company than you might expect because of the specific agreement they were trying to reach about the game (ex: [26][27][28]). Coverage definitely adds up to NCORP. C F A 💬 23:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Knight

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Aimee Knight (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)

Hi, I’ve nominated this page for deletion as I’m not sure whether they are relevant enough to warrant an entire wikipedia page, politicians who’ve stood for election and lost with less than 2% of the vote don’t generally get Wikipedia pages, especially when they’ve done nothing of much note after the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxisediting (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, not meeting the WP:NPOL criteria only means that there's no inherent notability, not that the subject is not notable. There seems to be enough significant coverage to meet WP:NBIO/WP:GNG. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agree with the above. Fundamentally well covered enough to meet criteria, and little reason to remove well enough sourced information. Flatthew (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Knight is much more than a failed election candidate as is attested to by the numerous citations to other events covered in the article. JezGrove (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Sexuality and gender, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete already been deleted twice under a different title, and the article contains massive WP:BLP concerns. SportingFlyer T·C 21:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A lot of the sources in the article are newer than the previous AfDs, I don't really see the relevance of them. AlexandraAVX (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm just struggling to figure out why she's notable. She clearly doesn't qualify for NPOL, and her other "event" was being fired. Most of the sources are either local papers or self-published. The article reads like WP:NPF needs to be properly applied as well. I'm struggling to see why this should be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 13:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Knight is an important figure in the recent history and controversies of Green Party of England and Wales as the article shows - Knight was not just a failed politician but someone whose behaviour and actions have had ramifications across the political spectrum. Zeno27 (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• (Redacted)

Can an admin delete this comment and block this person for using such a language! FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only "problem" with the redaction is that it proved my point that there are massive WP:NPF concerns with this article, which is about a non-public figure. SportingFlyer T·C 13:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a numerical consensus to Keep, they are weak Keeps with no reference to policy or sources. Also most participants have, what I consider, low edit counts so I'm not sure how familiar they are with the norms of AFD discussions. I'd just like to relist and hopefully hear how this subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability and, specifically, what reliable independent sources provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noting that there has been offwiki canvassing related to this AfD: [29], and I suspect that several of the infrequently active accounts voting in this discussion are likely the result of it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  looking to nom (from someone with two edits) and User:Aquila ka Hecate comment, I think there is more to consider when evaluating this nom FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are MULTIPLE reliable sources about the subject cited on the page, notability is obviously established, keep. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very interesting subject, but I'm not seeing the consistent, in-depth news coverage that would be required for a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: although not a notable as a politician, there is a substantial coverage from reliable sources that Checks all the boxes of WP:GNG comment there is coverage but the page is mostly about David Challenor, Knight's father, and gives undue weight to Challenor. If the article is kept, can someone fix this problem please and create a separate article for David Challenor (currently a redirect) because he actually deserves one with all of the coverage. I am really concerned about why this article was first created and I can’t assume good faith looking to keep votes above. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Very difficult case. She's borderline notable, but mostly for other people's wrong-doing and the way it affected her. I don't think it's realistic to have an article on this subject that adheres to the spirit of WP:BLP while also respecting WP:WEIGHT. That is, when the notability claim isn't extremely sound to begin with, and the source of that notability would demand a largely negative article chiefly related to the misdeeds of other people, we arrive at an exceptional scenario. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It would do this website injustice NOT to include a trans rights activist covered by the likes of The Guardian and BBC News. Content for women's rights, trans, and other activists is already lacking here as it is. We all must do better and try to improve it by not deleting swathes of content. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-45373833 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/06/aimee-challenor-theresa-may-lgbt-inequality-transgender-green-party Historyexpert2 — Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Her activism is highly notable. Agreed with the above. There's no need to delete. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Based on searches of Aimee Knight, this looks like a WP:BLP1E: her firing from Reddit. Many of the included sources are about her father, David Challenor, and per nom, she doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Say ocean again (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Seems to be WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS both for the stuff with Reddit and for the stuff to do with her father being her campaign manager. This is certainly not a WP:BLP1E. Can do with some clean-up but is not beyond redemption to the point of WP:TNT. TarnishedPath^talk 13:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Obvious, easy GNG keep from sources showing in the footnotes. If there is a content issue, SOFIXIT. Nor should IDONTLIKEIT arguments show their head in this venue. Carrite (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The delete votes aren't WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is a very difficult article about a private person. SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  She was the former spokesperson and electoral candidate for a political party. On face value, that says to me that she's not a private person. TarnishedPath^talk 13:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We wouldn't normally keep a spokesperson for a political party, especially not a minor political party, and we rarely keep articles on failed candidates. Merely running for office or being a spokesperson doesn't make you a public figure. SportingFlyer T·C 21:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Rhododendrites. This is certainly an edge case but she does not appear to be notable as a political candidate. She is marginally notable due to the protest against Reddit, but as Rhododendrites notes, this is tangled up with a separate person's misdeeds. I don't think documenting a private person's troubles here is good policy - maybe she gave up some expectation of privacy via running for office, but let's be real, it was a minor party protest vote. No objection to bringing back if her political career actually goes somewhere. SnowFire (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY: I just rewrote the article to be less of a train wreck. There's still some work to do but it no longer repeats her fathers crimes in every section and no longer misrepresents the sources as more critical than they are. I'm very sympathetic to arguments presented by @SportingFlyer, @Rhododendrites, @Say ocean again, and @SnowFire - but think that she is clearly notable to the extent we can't simply delete the article. We have sustained coverage over years detailing how she was a rising star for the greens and held prominent positions, engaged in advocacy, and her career was very publicly derailed following her father's conviction. I believe we should focus on making sure everything there is due and the BLP issues are handled sensitively rather than deleting it. I pinged y'all to see if my edits fixing the ostentatious BLP issues persuade you the article is salvagable, no worries if not. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure this is an improvement. By removing that the protest was related to her father's crimes, you've made the Reddit protest make no sense in your version as coming from seemingly out of nowhere. If she's going to have an article at all, it's going to need to include when her father was relevant to her biography in all of the parts it is relevant (which is unfortunately quite a lot of it), which is why I'd rather just delete entirely. Additionally, there are still aspects that are only questionably relevant - like why are we listing exactly all of her psychological conditions? Obviously autism is a bit of a special case as many people consider that a core part of their identity, but I'm not so sure Knight considers it that, and then that leaves why the others anyway (which are implicitly equated with the autism spectrum)? Your version has also added in more commentary from Knight (e.g. including the IMO fairly meaningless "she condemns the tweets" - of course she does, or including a long quote from her on resigning from the Green Party rather than simply saying it was due to transphobia). If we set aside her father's actions... what distinguishes Knight from any other activist? Not much, as best I can tell. This is not something article editing can really fix. This is an odd version of Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, where she's borderline notable but that notability is tied up in a non-notable person's negative coverage. SnowFire (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Gill

Stuart Gill (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iceland, Malta, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Important Ambassador key to negotiations on the completion of the EU’s Single Market. KEEP Cantab12 (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if not notable then this list List of high commissioners of the United Kingdom to Malta is just useless. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree. The list is not useless even if not all office holders on the list are inherently notable. The ones with knighthoods/damehoods would be considered notable, almost by default. Uhooep (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BIO. The sole keep vote fails to demonstrate existence of sources to meet GNG or WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delight Mobile

Delight Mobile (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 is a bundled nomination of five articles on UK MVNOs failing the notability guidelines for companies/products. They are part of a larger set of seven created by the same author in October 2011: two have since been deleted, one through PROD and the other through AfD.

The other four are:

• Dalya Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dialog Vizz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Now PAYG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stan Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rather than continue the slow trickle of individual deletions, I figure it makes more sense to discuss them all at once. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Kingdom, and England. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The few existing sources:

• this for Dialog Vizz
• this for Now

Are anyone of these affiliated? Have google searches been done? Mrfoogles (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are barely-rehashed product release announcements – textbook trivial coverage that doesn't contribute to notability. – Teratix ₵ 14:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Parker (police officer)

Edward Parker (police officer) (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 meet criteria of notability Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Seem to be police officers all over the world with this name... I get hits from the US, Australia and elsewhere, but nothing for this person. I'm not seeing more than a one or two line biography here, unsure of the notability. Lack of sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Coverage here in the Sydney Morning Herald from 1930 including biographical information [30]. A google books search focused on "Edward Parker" and "Special Branch" does identify a number of hits ([31]). There is potential for meeting notability guidelines therefore as an WP:ATD I suggest moving to draftspace for incubation. ResonantDis_tortion 10:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning toward delete based on discussion so far, but at least a little more discussion would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Taghnevan Harps

Taghnevan Harps (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)

Unable to find significant coverage of this team. C679 20:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Northern Ireland. C679 20:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Dennis D'Arcy

Dennis D'Arcy (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 GNG. An newspapers.com search found no SIGCOV. This Dennis D'Arcy isn't to be confused with the one that died in a car accident in 1963 or the non league footballer for Watton. Dougal18 (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Montrose F.C.#Other notable players where he is mentioned as a 'Hall of Fame' inductee. GiantSnowman 19:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Dougal18 and GiantSnowman: The British Newspaper Archive seems to bring up some coverage, e.g. [32] [33] [34]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have access, what do the sources say, is it significant enough in your view? GiantSnowman 20:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I forgot to check the BNA. I don't have access so I can't read the sources, just the headlines.Dougal18 (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Source #1 (1980) is about ~400 words on him being hired as a coach. It says, excluding some quotes from D'Arcy and content on the club rather than him (note that spelling may not be perfect):

  FORMER Montrose and Arbroath centre half Dennis D’Arcy last night became the new player-coach Peterhead. The powerful pivot has accepted the club's terms ... Dennis spent 10 seasons with Montrose and had a three-month spell at Qayfield and there has been a rush for his services, with Elgin City and Clach being unsuccessful. D'Arcy takes over from team manager Colin Grant, who has stepped down to become the club's first commercial manager. Dennis should be personality player for the Recreation Park side, though he would not be drawn on where he would play. With big John Slevwright and former schoolboy international James Taylor having held down the central defensive bertha for the past three seasonk, there could be some rearguard reshuffle on the cards, but the new boss has an open mind. Peterhead chairman Robbie Warrender raid last night: "Dennis made a highly favourable Impression on our committee and we feel «fe have fixed up the right type of man get us back among the honoura. “We are meeting Dennis again next week to discuss certain details of how things will be run, but after going through a great many names, we are happy with our choice of player-coach." ... Peterhead will have big Charlie Barbour, signed from Arbroath, leading the attack next season and if new boas D’Arcy can build an attack round Barbour, then Buchan hopes will be high. Dennis will be hoping he Is as successful in North soccer as was his brother, Brian D’Arcy, who won two Highland League championship medals with Inverness Thistle in the early 7ds.

  Source #2 (1983) is about him returning to Montrose. It states:

  Dennis D’Arcy, one of the most popular players ever to wear a Montrose F.C. shirt, last Wednesday took over as manager of the club, thirteen days after the shock resignation of Steve Murray. Dennis was a Montrose player for almost 11 years. He has maintained friendly links with the club and has been a regular visitor since he was given a surprise free transfer in 1980. During his eleven years at the club as a player D'Arcy was involved in Montrose F.C.’s most successful era. They finished third in the old second division in 1974- 75, the last season before reconstruction then the following season finished third in the new Division One. Their cup exploits too, put the club in the limelight. In 1975 they reached the Eeaguc Cup semi-final beating Hibs along the way before losing to Rangers. In the Scottish Cup they came within seconds of beating Hearts before finally losing after two replags. n leaving Montrose D’Arcy played with Arbroath for a short spell, followed this with a period as playermanager at Peterhead, then most recently played with Deveronvale. The new manager takes over at a time when the club’s fortunes are at their lowest for many years. They lie third bottom of the league and suffered a Scottish Cup defeat at the hands of grora Rangers. D’Arcy aims to recapture the spirit of the successful sides of the 1970’s and the directors have promised him their full support. He is under no illusions about the task which lies ahead or the amount of hard work required, but is calling on the players to back him 1n his efforts. A small amount of cash could be made available to the new boss but Montrose will not be embarking on any spending sprees and every member of staff will be given the chance to prove that they have a part to play.

  Source #3 (1973) is about him being 'confident' of victory in the Scottish cup. Content includes:

  The tie will provide one of the brightest Montrose prospects, Aberdonian Dennis D'Arcy, a 21-year-old former schoolboy international centre half, with his toughest test yet for his immediate opponent is John Duncan, clear leader in the Scottish First Division ... D'Arcy, whose brother Brian plays for Inverness Thistle, has made steady improvement this season and he's not losing sleep over his impending clash with Duncan ... A former pupil of Aberdeen Grammar School, D'Arcy attracted the attention of Everyton, Charlton, Leicester and Bristol Rovers during his spell with Walker Road Youth Club. He is still young enough to revive English interest in his future and a good display against Duncan could do the trick.

  @Dougal18 and GiantSnowman: BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These look OK to me, I'm inclined to keep if the article can be updated accordingly with this info/sourcing? GiantSnowman 16:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Those are just routine match previews and contract signings. Dougal18 (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean towards Keep Over 300 Scottish football league games played, there are some sources about to show basic GNG, article could do with a cleanup for sure, but the negation is not a reason for deletion. Govvy (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The sources provided by BeanieFan11 appear to be enough to meet WP:NBASIC as they go beyond trivial coverage. Let'srun (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the consensus is against keeping, redirect to Montrose F.C.#Other notable players as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Montrose F.C.#Other notable players. Doesn't pass WP:FOOTYN since he played for semi-professional teams. By the way, the article says he was "turning professional", although this is not true, apparently. I'm not sure that the archived articles listed above meet WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the BNA sources above appear to establish notability (newspapers.com is poor for European sources). But there are other non-BNA sources accessible to all. A 2017 piece in the Sunday Mail (Scotland) that's brief, but establishes long-term coverage - ProQuest 1932505681. Nfitz (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

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

Others

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

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