Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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

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

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


United Kingdom

Letters from a Killer

Letters from a Killer (  | 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)

Death of Jay Slater

Death of Jay Slater (  | 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 seems like a prime example of NOTNEWS to me; there is no indication that this is an event that rises to encyclopedic notability, and the history is replete with the removal of excessive tabloid-style detail and suggestion. Pinging the three editors that weighed in at WP:BLPN: notwally, Bon courage, DeCausa. Drmies ( talk) 16:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep - This was a huge case that went on national news every day until the case was resolved. Nicola Bulley, Madeline Mcann articles are still up. Makes zero sense to delete this in my opinion. R.I.P Jay Slater. Jattlife121 ( talk) 21:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Although "huge" and appearing "every day" in the news (at least in reliable sources) may be questionable hyperbole there's no denying it was a big news story in the UK. But it would be interesting to see the arguments of keep voters! as to how WP:RECENT media coverage equates to needing a WP:NOTNEWS encyclopaedia article. An encyclopedia and a colection of news clippings are not the same thing. The keepers don't seem to address that: specifically could someone talk through the 10 year test thought experiment in relation to this article. DeCausa ( talk) 22:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I think one thing is that the story has (unfortunately) moved outside of news coverage and into meme culture and maybe even urban mythology. I'm not inclined to go looking for links though because they're all in pretty bad taste. I doubt this story will go away quickly - multiple stories are still being published in the last 24 hours. As it says in WP:RAPID, we shouldn't rush to create articles but also shouldn't rush to delete them. I would just advise a pause on this one. Orange sticker ( talk) 08:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep - we have similar articles with extensive news coverage on deaths from exposure/misadventure/wilderness etc. including
Darrelljon ( talk) 22:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Are those similar though? All of them seem to be unsolved or were unsolved for a long period of time with sources from different decades, and/or had investigations into the police handling the cases. Does this particular article subject have any remarkable aspect about it as a case other than temporary news coverage? – notwally ( talk) 03:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Only Jay Slater made video calls whilst lost and disappeared with smartphone geographic coordinates available from early on. Unlike the others he was not camping/hiking/driving at night. The others were not subject to the social media reaction from the start. Darrelljon ( talk) 09:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep - the incident has had far too extensive media coverage to warrant a deletion Kala7992 ( talk) 16:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the sourcing in light of WP:NEVENT may help to bring about a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 20:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: "Young man falls from cliff" is not notable for our purposes. This doesn't appear to be a criminal event, so NOTNEWS applies here. Sad that he's passed, but this also appears to be a memorial to the individual. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: To be fair, I don't think the Nicola Bulley article is notable now that I look at it, but it's gone to AfD twice, so I won't bother nominating it. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep- The disappearance and death of Jay slater was and currently is a large story with significant publicity and might I point out the number of similar articles eg: Death of Nicola Bulley Anonymous569 ( talk) 02:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It's in the public interest to keep this wiki up.

It's not a secret, it's been all over the news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.37.42 ( talk) 09:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the convincing case made by Edl-irishboy. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 18:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I’ve already had my vote but I just have to echo the votes after mine of GiantSnowman and Black Kite. The sheer amount of coverage of this received in pretty much every single UK media source should nearly guarantee it as notable. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 23:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - yes NOTNEWS applies, but this was more than this in the UK. It was everywhere for a number of days. Giant Snowman 20:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Normally I'd suggest deleting most of these NOTNEWS types of articles, but this was so ludicrously widely covered both in RS and on social media because of the multiple unusual circumstances surrounding the case. If you were in the UK you couldn't escape it for a month. Yes, we have lots of crappy "Death of ..." articles but this one is more notable than the vast majority of those. Black Kite (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NOTNEWS and NEVENT. Keep in mind we are to summarize the news for the long term view and document to a day by day level. The coverage of this death pointed out by others above once the cause was known are routine aspects related to this type of story, and since neither the person normal actual death had any significant notability or long term impacts, it clearly fails our guidelines to keep. This is a strong case that that want to write on such news topics like this to start at Wikinews, and then if the story turns notable in the long term (not just primary sourcing as here) then it could be moved to en.wiki. Most of the keep arguments avoid are not starters per ATA. Masem ( t) 21:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Routine accidental death of a non-notable person. Cullen328 ( talk) 21:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: There are numerous articles on WP covering the accidental death of a non-notable person. Specifically, the Death of Nicola Bulley story. She was a non-notable person who had an accidental death - and her case is only being reported recently again due to the Jay Slater story as has been reported widely. Though she has gone through AfD twice, the article remains. It is absurd to propose deleting this article while allowing a plethora of similar articles to exist. It is inconsistent and undermines neutrality. Said articles out there include:
  • The Death of Esther Dingley article is believed to be an accidental fall as is Jay Slater's, and it hasn't gone to AfD.
  • Disappearance of Cynthia Bah-Traore who's page is just a simple missing person's case, with no widespread global attention, and her article remains. It's also an example of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROMOTION,
  • Death of Haider who also suffered an accidental fall with no widespread media attention or further information, another example of NOTNEWS.
  • and Death of Lauren Cho. Further researching can show further similar articles. To single out the Jay Slater article for deletion is an erratic action in my opinion. Thank you. Edl-irishboy ( talk) 22:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Multi-AFDs do not have a lot of support unless the articles are extremely similar to each other, often created and only edited by the same editor. While these all fit the same theme of "disappearance and unfortunately accidental death of a non-notable person" the circustances around the stories as well as how they were created are are to dissimilar to run them all at the same time. —  Masem ( t) 00:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Just a general comment: WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are pretty much never effective ways to try to argue that a particular article should be kept. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
      • It is essential to recognise Wikipedia's purpose 'to benefit readers by presenting information on all branches of knowledge'. This adheres to Wiki's guidelines by providing the primary criterion for inclusion of verifiability and notability which have been met. The overarching theme of 'notable accidental deaths and disappearances' provides a cohesive context for inclusion. While WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not valid reasons for retention, they highlight wiki's essential aspect of consistency. If numerous articles on similar topics exist and are maintained on here, it sets a precedent for what the community considers notable. This article meets the same criteria that justified the inclusion of similar cases as I have provided already. Edl-irishboy ( talk) 01:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
        • I'm not sure I agree with your If numerous articles on similar topics exist and are maintained on here, it sets a precedent for what the community considers notable. statement about other articles exising estblishing some kind of precedent that this article should also exist. There over six million Wikipedia articles and more keep being added everything. So, the fact that something exists, even if it has existed for a WP:LONGTIME, doesn't necessarily mean it should exist. I'm not saying those other articles need to be deleted; only that it's better to focus on why this article should be kept instead of trying to establish some kind of WP:SYN-ish/ WP:OR-ish type (in my opinion) of correspondance between it and other articles. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
          • As have emphasised many times by myself and others, there has been significant media attention and demonstrated interest in the Wiki community to Jay's disappearance and subsequent death, indicating its impact and public interest. The coverage by major news outlets highlights its relevance and importance. His case, given its circumstances and the attention it received, is a part of contemporary history in which Wiki serves as a repository of. I reiterate while the existence of other articles doesn't automatically justify retention, it is worth noting that similar cases have been documented here, indicating a community consensus on the notability of such events. Furthermore, his case provides educational value by offering the effects of social media that it had impacted on this case, as was the case of Nicola Bulley. The article can be expanded to include further details, the broader social implications of his death, responses from various community leaders and any subsequent changes in policies or public awareness campaigns. Edl-irishboy ( talk) 22:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
            • "indicating its impact and public interest"... in the short term. There's nothing to indicate long term notability per NEVENT, nor the GNG (It's why we avoid articles on short term bursts of news coverage). Perhaps this also applies to the other articles given but those should be considered case by case.
              The other way to view this is if you were just starting to look at these events, but ten years from now without the awareness of being in the midst of the media coverage. Based on what we know, it's unlikely that it would make sense to write such an article that has no lasting impact. That's where we need editors to keep NOTNEWS in mind —  Masem ( t) 22:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
              • 'There's nothing to indicate long term notability'..notability can sometimes emerge over time. Many historical events initially appeared to have fleeting impact but gained importance as societal context evolved. Future developments and new perspectives could bring a greater understanding of its impact. We shouldn't consider how events are viewed 'ten years from now' without current media awareness. The article represents a snapshot of public interest and societal issues of social media for example relevant today. This flawed perspective is precisely why preserving such articles is important, acknowledging that significance can develop over time, it helps maintain a comprehensive historical record. Historical examples such as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand demonstrate how events initially perceived as minor can later gain immense significance. Edl-irishboy ( talk) 22:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
                • It's more the reverse, the current flawed perspective is this need to rush to create articles on events that have a short term surge of coverage without waiting for the long term impact to reveal itself. That's why we have had to write NEVENT to try to get editors to get back to writing encyclopic articles aligned with NOTNEWS and not simply regurgitating every detail revealed by the news to give excessive weight on first party sourcing. This latter approach is far better at Wikinews, and if the event does show itself notable, then we can bring it back into en.wiki. —  Masem ( t) 22:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
                  • Jay Slater’s passing is not merely a transient news event. The community's response reflect lasting importance. Delaying the article's inclusion under the assumption that it can be resurrected later risks losing valuable context and immediate responses. It is not the reverse of good practice to maintain the article on here at this time. Suggesting that the article should be deferred to Wikinews for immediate coverage before being evaluated later fails to recognise that wiki is precisely the right platform for documenting significant events. This fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia's purpose. His death has had a considerable impact which is reflected in the coverage. It is not a matter of reversing proper procedure but about ensuring that significant events are documented comprehensively and timely on here. The notion that his article should be removed and only considered if it proves its notability over time does a disservice to wiki's role in preserving and reflecting on significant life events as they happen. The immediate reactions, governmental and professional acknowledgments such as here and here, as well as personal tributes are part of a larger narrative that wiki is well-positioned to document. Slater's article, supported by diverse sources, reflects the criteria for notability and the purpose of wiki to capture and document such events in real time. I am surprised only Jay Slater's article is being proposed for deletion and not others I have mentioned. Concluding, removing the article based on the premise that it might not be notable enough for wiki later undermines the value of preserving immediate and contextual information. Edl-irishboy ( talk) 23:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge the parts about social media to social media or some other article that talks about the effects of social media on society. This is the analytical and encyclopedic part of the article. The tragic death itself isn't encyclopedic and could be summed up in just a few sentences for background. As many people have said, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, and we shouldn't create articles as a memorial. We really do have to start following policy on this issue, or else Wikipedia is going to fill up tabloid stories as news sites get more desperate for clicks. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 00:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's a good point. To the extent there is any encyclopedic value (as opposed to news interest) in this article it's part of a broader theme on social media and society. That's best handled by incorporation into an article such as social media. As a standalone that doesn't work. DeCausa ( talk) 22:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Just going to add that if the article ends up being merged or redirected, then the non-free use of the main infobox image would need to be re assessed because the justification for non-free use would no longer be primary identification of the subject in main infobox of a stand-alone article about the subject. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: WP:NOTNEWS with much of the coverage being sensationalist and not indicative of the topic being likely to meet WP:LASTING. Java Hurricane 17:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • While wiki is not a newspaper, it does not mean that content on here is divorced from the standards of significant and sustained coverage. His death, while perhaps not an ongoing headline, has had a significant impact in its own right. The circumstances surrounding the death contributed to broader discussions on important issues such as social media and the conspiracy theories as with the case of Nicola Bulley. The long-term relevance of Jay's case cannot be discounted. Issues related to his death may evolve and become more significant over time. The claim that the coverage of his case is sensationalist does not align with the credibility of the sources reporting on the case. Major news outlets such as the BBC, Sky News, The Guardian, and The New York Times have provided day to day coverage. These are well-respected organisations known for their journalistic standards and rigorous reporting. Furthermore, I know shouldnt discuss other similar articles, but the case of Nicola Bulley, sensationalist tabloid newspaper articles have been sourced, and no one has said a word? <> <> Edl-irishboy ( talk) 22:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Sustained coverage is usually measured far beyond one month, given we write for a long term view. —  Masem ( t) 22:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
        Notability does not rely solely on the duration of coverage but rather on the depth and significance of the coverage too. The value of documenting an event is not merely about waiting for a lengthy period of coverage. The emphasis should be on the quality of the coverage rather than its duration. Edl-irishboy ( talk) 23:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
        No, we specifically say that a burst of coverage is not an indicator of notability. See WP:NSUSTAINED, and the essence of WP:NEVENT. We're not a newspaper and just because an event may get a large amount of news covers from quality sources still doesn't make the topic necessarily appropriate for a stand alone article if all that coverage is only in the short term. Masem ( t) 01:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
        From the WP:NSUSTAINED you have noted, it states 'a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it".' The case of Jay Slater has indeed garnered significant attention beyond the immediate burst of news coverage. The coverage from notable, reliable sources indicates a sustained interest and recognition of the article's significance on a wider scale. It has received attention not just within the United Kingdom but also internationally. The coverage of Jay Slater's death is not merely superficial but has involved detailed reporting, analysis, and commentary. While Wiki is not a newspaper which I've said countless times in my arguments, the case of Jay Slater went beyond the criteria of ephemeral media attention. I reiterate that I cannot stress enough why on earth this article would be proposed for deletion when there are multiple articles about accidental deaths that have been retained with no trouble; this proposal clearly goes against Wikipedia's policies and purpose and wholly undermines neutrality on here. Moreover, it is deeply unfair to the dedicated editors who have invested their time and effort in creating and refining these articles in good faith. Edl-irishboy ( talk) 22:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing but primary sources can exist; this happened just a month ago, so everything that has been written about the incident is in the context of the event. Wait until we have secondary sources — books, academic journals, retrospective journalism, etc., that look at the sources from the time of the event — rather than relying on primary sources, those written around the time of the event. Nyttend ( talk) 06:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    This is nonsensical. Secondary sources can " involve generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information". There are clear secondary sources in this article, as evidenced by the analysis and opinion pieces references provided, as seen here, here and here. The article contains a mixture of primary and secondary sources alike, so it is wholly absurd to comment about the non-existence of secondary sources in the article. Edl-irishboy ( talk) 22:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Edl-irishboy, at a certain point, you are WP:BLUDGEONING the AfD. – notwally ( talk) 23:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Resonant Distortion 11:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Absolutely enormous coverage in the UK media moves this well above the WP:NOTNEWS standard. Truly laughable nomination. No more NOTNEWS than the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Actually had a hell of a lot more coverage in the UK media than that minor incident. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    It is a laughable nomination to be honest. The significant coverage, not least in the UK, but globally, clearly goes above the WP:NOTNEWS standard. RIP Jay. Edl-irishboy ( talk) 23:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have reviewed the above discussion and checked several sources. Yes, the subject garnered a huge amount of media and news coverage, and yes - other stuff may exist. However my !vote to keep is based upon the steady emergence of WP:RS articles which are more secondary in nature - commenting and analyzing on not just the incident but also the surrounding events such as the sleuthing and trolling and nature of "high-profile missing person's cases". Examples of which, and some have been linked previously, include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. As such, in my view, I consider to presume that GNG is met. Resonant Distortion 15:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Comment A new article 1 suggests interest will drop off, at least in terms of tabloid news. However in doing so, is a secondary source analysing and comparing the case with the Disappearance of Damien Nettles and Jack O'Sullivan (from this year) and the article itself generates more sustained coverage instead of it's claim otherwise. Darrelljon ( talk) 07:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Boardmasters Festival line-ups

Boardmasters Festival line-ups (  | 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)

Contested WP:BLAR. Article is a huge magnet for WP:FANCRUFT that currently cites only one source. Only verifiable source to back the information is a WP:SPS: the website itself. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 21:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Anthony Hammer

Anthony Hammer (  | 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 on this previously unreferenced biography of an actor. I've found and added four references, but three are from the BBC Press Office so are not independent, and the fourth is a passing mention in a local newspaper. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. His two roles for which we have evidence are supporting characters as far as I can see, so I don't think he meets WP:NACTOR. The article has been tagged as possibly not meeting notability criteria since December 2023. Tacyarg ( talk) 18:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Knights of St Columba

Knights of St Columba (  | 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)

Multiple issues. Wikipedia:Notability not established and does not meet guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Additional citations needed since 2014. The 5 references are not sufficient to establish notability given that 4 of them coming from the organisation itself. Coldupnorth ( talk) 09:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Anarcho-monarchism

AfDs for this article:
Anarcho-monarchism (  | 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 lead sentence of this article describes the subject as a "fringe theoretical political philosophy", which is already quite the shaky start, but I think even this description gives it more credit than it's due, as the term is not popular enough to even show up in Google Ngrams results.

Of the cited sources in this article, and the ones I can see on Google Scholar, there appear to be three broad uses for the term: one is a throwaway term used by Peter Lamborn Wilson (see Grindon 2004; Fiscella 2009; Fiscella 2020); another a descriptor for Tolkien's political ideology, largely based on a single letter he wrote to his son (see Hart 2010; Siewers 2013; Hayes 2017; Davis 2021); and finally as a generic throw-away descriptor for neo-feudalism (see Turan 2023). One other source describes Rodolphe Crevelle, the founder of Lys Noir, as an "anarcho-royaliste", but again in a throwaway line that almost reads as mocking.

Something that quickly becomes apparent in all of the sources, is that none of them give significant coverage to the subject. Almost all of the references are throw-away mentions, sometimes relegated to footnotes. The only source that goes in any depth is a student paper, which is quite clearly not a reliable source. I doubt this article will grow any larger than the stub it currently exists as.

As I stated, calling this a "fringe theoretical political philosophy" is generous, as it doesn't appear to be a real thing at all. Its references are all throwaway lines, usually either attributed to Peter Lamborn Wilson or describing a single letter by Tolkien. There'd barely even be enough to merge into Wilson or Tolkien's own articles, the sourcing is that thin. As there appears to be no significant coverage of "anarcho-monarchism" in reliable sources, I'm recommending this article for deletion. Grnrchst ( talk) 08:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete, you make some great points. While the article is better than it's original form, it's lacking in many areas. Could it be transferred to my userspace for archival purposes? Microplastic Consumer ( talk) 16:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
If you plan to keep working on it, yes, the closing admin can help, per WP:DRAFTIFY. If you are looking to just keep it for posterity, I recommend saving an offline copy since Wikipedia does not hold drafts indefinitely. czar 19:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Magazine incorporating Angel Magazine

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Magazine incorporating Angel Magazine (  | 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)

Run-off-the-mill merchandise without impact ( WP:N). It has the same problems as List of Buffyverse guidebooks. Its existence is already summarized in one sentence in the TV show's main article. – sgeureka t• c 08:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

White Crane Films

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. One of the reference links is their company website. The other 2 reference links don’t work. The founders seem to be notable, but as per WP:ORGDEPTH, most of the search results throw up articles which speak about the founders, but there is no significant coverage on the company. Wikilover3509 ( talk) 6:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Jamie D'Souza

AfDs for this article:
Jamie D'Souza (  | 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 comedian; refunded after soft deletion but no changes made since article was restored. Fails notability under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER. The vast majority of sources cited in this article are Q&A interview/podcast interviews and thus ineligible to count toward notability as primary sources. There are a handful of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in sources like this and two Chortle reviews for D'Souza's Fringe performances. I would need to see additional WP:SIGCOV for this to clear the bar, and BEFORE searches (both at time of original nomination and after the refund) did not turn any up. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 21:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Crooked Boy

Crooked Boy (  | 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 article does not satisfy musical notability because it has no charting information and does not otherwise satisfy any of the musical notability criteria, and does not satisfy general notability because it does not refer to significant coverage by third parties. It was unilaterally moved from draft space to article space by the page creator with the edit summary It's been too long, so draftification is not appropriate. The Heymann criterion is to add charting information within six days.

Redirect to Ringo Starr discography#Extended plays: Album has been out for multiple months and has not received satisfactory coverage for notability as nominator has stated, nor any requisite charting/sales figures. No point in returning it to drafts if it's just not a notable release. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 07:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have added charting information to the article from Official Charts. It appears that there's only charting information for the title track, but it performed fairly well on the aforementioned chart, so there's no reason to delete it. There was no charting information on the article because it was created before it was released. The article also passes WP:GNG, since there are several articles discussing the EP from different sources. Just because the information isn't there doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Bandit Heeler ( talk) 11:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - It appears that this nomination was based on events in the draft system, and the nominator likely failed to do the WP:BEFORE search that is required before a deletion debate in order to investigate notability. Also, deciding that notability had not been established just because of spotty sources in the draft version is a violation of WP:NEXIST. The album received widespread reliable coverage the week of its release, and it and one of its songs made the charts in two countries months before this nomination. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. There seems to be significant coverage on reliable sources. However, there may be some confusion if the coverage is due to the notability of the EP, or because of the popularity of the artist Ringo Starr of which notability is not inherited may be invoked. Prof.PMarini ( talk) 10:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

De'Anyers family

De'Anyers family (  | 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:NOTGENEALOGY. I don't think any reliable sources cited or available elsewhere provide significant coverage of the article subject, instead providing lots of tangential mentions that do not by themselves confer notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This is not an accurrate statement, the sources listed are entirley comprehensive, I ask which ones precisely are 'tangential'.
Notability is sufficent as seen in the extensive sources primary and secondary. Starktoncollosal ( talk) 08:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I am happy to discuss which sources in particular do not provide significant coverage and see where we go from there, I am aware that there are yes a significant number of sources used which may convey this, however are consolidated by a number of reliable and imparital sources used in this article as well as other articles of a similar nature which cover landed families. Starktoncollosal ( talk) 08:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
proposing Keep, I have had a look through the source list comprehensivley and would very much like to discuss this and see if we can reach a consensus.at some point ? several main sources used for the article are all impartial and well known genealogical publications - Burkes, Ormerods, ect. The Battle Abbey Role by the Duchess of Cleveland published I believe in the 1890s covering the families on the scroll, also a book on a biography of the family. Other verified wikipedia pages exist for 3 members of the family listed on the page as well as others not mentioned (artists William Daniell and Thomas Daniell, and Thomas Daniel)
The issue is perhaps the interchangable use of De'Anyers and Daniell between sources however this I have found to be the historical case.. in looking to upload several Van Dyck portraits (Peter Daniell MP) and his sister and aunt I have found them to be listed as De'Anyers however it is the same family.
I am happy to explore and make any edits you may suggest ? (I wondered if perhaps some paragraphs could be slimmed down slightly). However based on pages existing for other identical landed families in Cheshire (several of whom intermarried and are included in the Daniell article) and based on historical significance, and the other reasons mentioned It has its place on wiki, and just needs fleshing out being comparativley newer, which I was activley working on :). Starktoncollosal ( talk) 00:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Which sources go into significant prose depth on the family? Keep in mind that genealogies and other directories are not SIGCOV. Coverage of individual members of the family does not count towards notability of the family. Primary sources and passing mentions do not count at all. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
source 6 - A Biography written on the family, and 1 certainly are the first to spring to mind. Can I ask the issue with primary sources coming from an academic writing background in early modern history i thought inclusion of these would bolster an articles notability and conslodiate its relevance ? I understand that for one or two members having pages not warranting a notability claim but surley the case can be made for, as seen in other noble families pages, members consistently throughout an extended time period having influence (as nobility did), - thus warranting notability ? Starktoncollosal ( talk) 19:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Ginny Holder

AfDs for this article:
Ginny Holder (  | 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 actress, Bar Holby City her roles have all been one-bit/minor roles, Cannot find anything in-depth on Google News (all are gossip/mentions), Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG – Davey2010 Talk 18:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep, as she had recurring roles in multiple shows — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterencio ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement on whether the subject passes or fails NACTOR.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Orsett Heath Academy

Orsett Heath Academy (  | 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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Try to focus on one Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge: Can probably be covered on Grays,_Essex#Secondary_education. IgelRM ( talk) 11:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply



Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also



England

Denny Draper

Denny Draper (  | 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)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Only secondary sources in the article and found during WP:BEFORE check are match reports with surface level coverage of the subject. AlexandraAVX ( talk) 16:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment (contributor). I tried improving this to bring it back to mainspace, based on elements of BASIC per SPORTBASIC (the guidelines that covers the notability of people and athletics), as a combination of secondary sources, rather than the need for exclusive SIGCOV (the guidelines that covers the notability of topics). So far there is Sky Sports and BBC for this, which I believe is beyond trivial, and borderline BASIC per Govvy comment. It's otherwise unfortunately that the BBC's Women's Football Show episodes are no longer available, as I remember distinct post-game coverage of Draper after her initial goal; that of her international career, prospects and style of play (beyond ROUTINE), that would certainly cross the threshold for basic notability (people and sports-related). I'll try find a copy of this somewhere to see if it could be used as a cite av media ref, even if not possible as an online source. I think it's also fair to assume basic based on "they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level", that of being top scorer in the U17 Euro qualifying, as subjectively the U17 Euros are the highest level of competition at that age range, though I can understand how this is intended for senior competitions only, as well as only a guide to likelihood of notability, as opposed to notability itself. Either way, it wouldn't be too much of a loss if the page get's deleted, as I suspect there will be SIGCOV soon enough for it to return. It would be unfortunate for an active WSL player to have their page deleted, but based on policy/coverage it'd be understandable. I can only assume it's age-related as to why there isn't further coverage, given she would be one of the very few WSL players to have scored a league goal and not have an article. CNC ( talk) 16:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Knights of St Columba

Knights of St Columba (  | 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)

Multiple issues. Wikipedia:Notability not established and does not meet guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Additional citations needed since 2014. The 5 references are not sufficient to establish notability given that 4 of them coming from the organisation itself. Coldupnorth ( talk) 09:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Palamon Capital Partners

Palamon Capital Partners (  | 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)

nonnoitable private equity firm - Altenmann >talk 23:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Non notable corporation with no sources except that they bought another company. Wikipedia is not a directory or catalog of every business. I do complement the article's author, however. They did a wonderful job in formatting. Bluefist talk 02:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

White Crane Films

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. One of the reference links is their company website. The other 2 reference links don’t work. The founders seem to be notable, but as per WP:ORGDEPTH, most of the search results throw up articles which speak about the founders, but there is no significant coverage on the company. Wikilover3509 ( talk) 6:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Wright Karts

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. The only reference link is their company website. The company seems to have supported many famous race drivers, but as per WP:ORGDEPTH, most of the articles speak about the racers and there is no significant coverage on the company itself. Wikilover3509 ( talk) 6:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

EasyJet Flight 6074

EasyJet Flight 6074 (  | 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 incident and WP:NOTNEWS BasketballDog21 ( talk) 01:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Easyjet Flight 6074 (G-EZAC) was also used as a case study across multiple studies years after the incident which does demonstrate the event's notability:
  • The incident was listed in EASA's list of recurrent defects:
  • I would be inclined to express a keep opinion if, among other things, this incident was used as a case study on an ongoing basis, but I couldn't find anything in the first two English-language examples that you cited other than the references section. Can you point me to some specific page numbers in any of those references (even non-English) to show how this was used to show lasting impact on the aviation industry? The PDFs are more than a hundred pages long each, and I searched for the airliner name and the registration of the aircraft, but couldn't find what you were referring to. The current version of the article suggests that a scary technical problem occurred, many bad things could have happened, but the flight eventually landed safely. I'm not yet seeing the lasting notability that can be added to the article, or presumed notability associated with a hull loss or crash with injuries or fatalities. RecycledPixels ( talk) 04:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I failed to precise this but the incident, in most the papers, do not directly mention the incident but instead use the incident as a source, reference, among many others. If you search for the registration, you should normally be able to find mentions of the incident in the sources section. Per the order of pdf files given above, the specific page numbers are: p.337; p.222; p.26; p.172; p.184; p.20; p.10. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 10:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Aviationwikiflight, you've shown that the incident has been widely studied, and that it led to procedural and design changes. The article could of course, if kept, be updated accordingly. But does it make the flight notable enough to justify a standalone article rather than just adding a sentence or two to the existing mention on List of accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family? I'm not convinced yet... Rosbif73 ( talk) 14:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: Nominator has been blocked for being a disreputable sock. Borgenland ( talk) 13:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Edgar Chibaka

Edgar Chibaka (  | 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)

should be deleted due to the lack of significant independent coverage that meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG), relying instead on primary sources, company related news and not significant mentions. LusikSnusik ( talk) 10:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete interviews are a poor way to establish notability and if he owns the Nyasa Times then it isn't independent enough to establish notability. Traumnovelle ( talk) 21:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Traumnovelle Alternatively, it makes sense to redirect it to their company on Wikipedia that the subject found, thus Nyasa Times. Again, not all sources are interviews. Furthermore, this AfD was made by someone at random who was even reported at ANI here and there is even a discussion on their talk page about their nominations. Tumbuka Arch ( talk) 07:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't oppose a redirect. I looked at the references now. I presumed the sources you mentioned were the strongest sources. The strongest source appears to be the Yorkshire Evening Post but it isn't enough for notability in my opinion. Traumnovelle ( talk) 07:35, 21 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) 07:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Akin Gazi

Akin Gazi (  | 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 actor. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Cowlibob ( talk) 14:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi, @ Cowlibob: I suppose that WP:NACTOR is more likely to apply. Regarding its criteria: 'Such a person may be considered notable if:
1) The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or
2) The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.'
I think 1) is more likely to apply. I can see from his page that he has appeared in almost two dozen films and television shows which are sufficiently notable to have their own article. Do you accept that they are notable? If so, is your case simply that his roles are not significant? How do you believe that a significant role is defined for the purposes of notability in WP:NACTOR? Is there a guideline or 'case law' supporting this? Thanks.

Jontel ( talk) 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Weak KEEP Gazi's article seemingly meets the criteria of WP:NACTOR i.e. 'Such a person may be considered notable if the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows...' in that he has appeared in multiple (around two dozen) productions which have their own articles (and so are presumably notable) and his generally mid ranking in credited roles are presumably sufficiently significant. The case for keeping the article is strengthened by a career duration at this level of almost two decades WP:SUSTAINED. However, without searching through the reviews of his productions, there appears to be little independent reliable secondary coverage of him, which would be required to pass WP:BASIC. The key guiding text appears to be: 'People are likely to be notable if they meet (WP:NACTOR)...(However)...meeting (WP:NACTOR) does not guarantee that a subject should be included.' i.e. WP:NACTOR alone is not sufficient for notability. Given his roles in so many notable productions, is there a case for giving editors time to find the coverage necessary to meet WP:BASIC, as suggested in WP:ATD, by leaving it for a period? Jontel ( talk) 21:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Orsett Heath Academy

Orsett Heath Academy (  | 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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Try to focus on one Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge: Can probably be covered on Grays,_Essex#Secondary_education. IgelRM ( talk) 11:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Others


Northern Ireland

Christopher McGimpsey

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. Being a councillor does not automatically confer notability, and criteria for GNG isn’t satisfied either. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Others

Scotland

Scottish Young Conservatives

Scottish Young Conservatives (  | 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)

Zero secondary sources. Completely fails WP:NORG. Little more than an advertisement and directory listing. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Knights of St Columba

Knights of St Columba (  | 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)

Multiple issues. Wikipedia:Notability not established and does not meet guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Additional citations needed since 2014. The 5 references are not sufficient to establish notability given that 4 of them coming from the organisation itself. Coldupnorth ( talk) 09:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Daryll Meggatt

Daryll Meggatt (  | 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. A search in the archives found no SIGCOV just mentions in match reports. Dougal18 ( talk) 13:56, 23 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) 16:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Found a few interviews ( 1, 2), but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Lean towards Keep Per sources above, plus [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], And he has played way over 100 professional football league games in Scotland. I don't get why you want to delete such an article on professional Scottish footballer. @ GiantSnowman: Take your pick on sources, there are loads more tabloid articles on the guy. That's just my five minutes of looking. And I bet there are OFFLINE also! :/ Govvy ( talk) 21:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Comment You have linked to 7 sources. The first 6 are namedrops that do not provide SIGCOV of Meggatt. The seventh is from the Scottish Sun which is an unreliable source. NFOOTBALL is no more so stop making the appearances argument. Dougal18 ( talk) 08:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
      Agree with Dougal I'm afraid - none of these are SIGCOV, and the Sun is trash. Giant Snowman 16:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
      • I don't know why you guys don't do the research or look for sources. Dougal18 has absolutely no interest in constructing wikipedia articles from my point of view. He constantly wants to delete what I call decent articles. Like I said above that's what I found in five minutes yesterday, yes the article is heavy on primary sources and sport stat sources. I provided an assortment of some basic secondary to back the primary sources up, (that's why I said lean towards keep I didn't say straight out keep.) But that doesn't negative anything, I never mentioned NFOOTBALL either, I go by WP:BASIC, and so many many people seem to ignore you can have a build on secondary sources. Take one of Scotlands newspaper websites go enter his name and see what you find. For instance, The Scottish Herald, how many results are there. A non notable person wouldn't have that many results for his name. People go on about it's always routine coverage! But all football is pretty much routine now, it's a paradoxical sport, routine coverage is not a bad thing and the more the better. SIGCOV pfft, you don't need to follow so blindly a policy and yes it's a policy it's not a rule of state. Apart from JTtheOG no one else provided sources, I've done just that and yet you want to persecute my findings. That really is pathetic and bias towards deletion without a true peer review. Govvy ( talk) 09:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nowhere close to SIGCOV. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:47, 25 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


Wales

Knights of St Columba

Knights of St Columba (  | 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)

Multiple issues. Wikipedia:Notability not established and does not meet guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Additional citations needed since 2014. The 5 references are not sufficient to establish notability given that 4 of them coming from the organisation itself. Coldupnorth ( talk) 09:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Others



Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/United_Kingdom&oldid=1236948743"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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

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

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


United Kingdom

Letters from a Killer

Letters from a Killer (  | 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)

Death of Jay Slater

Death of Jay Slater (  | 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 seems like a prime example of NOTNEWS to me; there is no indication that this is an event that rises to encyclopedic notability, and the history is replete with the removal of excessive tabloid-style detail and suggestion. Pinging the three editors that weighed in at WP:BLPN: notwally, Bon courage, DeCausa. Drmies ( talk) 16:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep - This was a huge case that went on national news every day until the case was resolved. Nicola Bulley, Madeline Mcann articles are still up. Makes zero sense to delete this in my opinion. R.I.P Jay Slater. Jattlife121 ( talk) 21:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Although "huge" and appearing "every day" in the news (at least in reliable sources) may be questionable hyperbole there's no denying it was a big news story in the UK. But it would be interesting to see the arguments of keep voters! as to how WP:RECENT media coverage equates to needing a WP:NOTNEWS encyclopaedia article. An encyclopedia and a colection of news clippings are not the same thing. The keepers don't seem to address that: specifically could someone talk through the 10 year test thought experiment in relation to this article. DeCausa ( talk) 22:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I think one thing is that the story has (unfortunately) moved outside of news coverage and into meme culture and maybe even urban mythology. I'm not inclined to go looking for links though because they're all in pretty bad taste. I doubt this story will go away quickly - multiple stories are still being published in the last 24 hours. As it says in WP:RAPID, we shouldn't rush to create articles but also shouldn't rush to delete them. I would just advise a pause on this one. Orange sticker ( talk) 08:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep - we have similar articles with extensive news coverage on deaths from exposure/misadventure/wilderness etc. including
Darrelljon ( talk) 22:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Are those similar though? All of them seem to be unsolved or were unsolved for a long period of time with sources from different decades, and/or had investigations into the police handling the cases. Does this particular article subject have any remarkable aspect about it as a case other than temporary news coverage? – notwally ( talk) 03:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Only Jay Slater made video calls whilst lost and disappeared with smartphone geographic coordinates available from early on. Unlike the others he was not camping/hiking/driving at night. The others were not subject to the social media reaction from the start. Darrelljon ( talk) 09:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep - the incident has had far too extensive media coverage to warrant a deletion Kala7992 ( talk) 16:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the sourcing in light of WP:NEVENT may help to bring about a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 20:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: "Young man falls from cliff" is not notable for our purposes. This doesn't appear to be a criminal event, so NOTNEWS applies here. Sad that he's passed, but this also appears to be a memorial to the individual. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: To be fair, I don't think the Nicola Bulley article is notable now that I look at it, but it's gone to AfD twice, so I won't bother nominating it. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep- The disappearance and death of Jay slater was and currently is a large story with significant publicity and might I point out the number of similar articles eg: Death of Nicola Bulley Anonymous569 ( talk) 02:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It's in the public interest to keep this wiki up.

It's not a secret, it's been all over the news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.37.42 ( talk) 09:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the convincing case made by Edl-irishboy. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 18:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I’ve already had my vote but I just have to echo the votes after mine of GiantSnowman and Black Kite. The sheer amount of coverage of this received in pretty much every single UK media source should nearly guarantee it as notable. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 23:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - yes NOTNEWS applies, but this was more than this in the UK. It was everywhere for a number of days. Giant Snowman 20:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Normally I'd suggest deleting most of these NOTNEWS types of articles, but this was so ludicrously widely covered both in RS and on social media because of the multiple unusual circumstances surrounding the case. If you were in the UK you couldn't escape it for a month. Yes, we have lots of crappy "Death of ..." articles but this one is more notable than the vast majority of those. Black Kite (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NOTNEWS and NEVENT. Keep in mind we are to summarize the news for the long term view and document to a day by day level. The coverage of this death pointed out by others above once the cause was known are routine aspects related to this type of story, and since neither the person normal actual death had any significant notability or long term impacts, it clearly fails our guidelines to keep. This is a strong case that that want to write on such news topics like this to start at Wikinews, and then if the story turns notable in the long term (not just primary sourcing as here) then it could be moved to en.wiki. Most of the keep arguments avoid are not starters per ATA. Masem ( t) 21:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Routine accidental death of a non-notable person. Cullen328 ( talk) 21:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: There are numerous articles on WP covering the accidental death of a non-notable person. Specifically, the Death of Nicola Bulley story. She was a non-notable person who had an accidental death - and her case is only being reported recently again due to the Jay Slater story as has been reported widely. Though she has gone through AfD twice, the article remains. It is absurd to propose deleting this article while allowing a plethora of similar articles to exist. It is inconsistent and undermines neutrality. Said articles out there include:
  • The Death of Esther Dingley article is believed to be an accidental fall as is Jay Slater's, and it hasn't gone to AfD.
  • Disappearance of Cynthia Bah-Traore who's page is just a simple missing person's case, with no widespread global attention, and her article remains. It's also an example of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROMOTION,
  • Death of Haider who also suffered an accidental fall with no widespread media attention or further information, another example of NOTNEWS.
  • and Death of Lauren Cho. Further researching can show further similar articles. To single out the Jay Slater article for deletion is an erratic action in my opinion. Thank you. Edl-irishboy ( talk) 22:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Multi-AFDs do not have a lot of support unless the articles are extremely similar to each other, often created and only edited by the same editor. While these all fit the same theme of "disappearance and unfortunately accidental death of a non-notable person" the circustances around the stories as well as how they were created are are to dissimilar to run them all at the same time. —  Masem ( t) 00:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Just a general comment: WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are pretty much never effective ways to try to argue that a particular article should be kept. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
      • It is essential to recognise Wikipedia's purpose 'to benefit readers by presenting information on all branches of knowledge'. This adheres to Wiki's guidelines by providing the primary criterion for inclusion of verifiability and notability which have been met. The overarching theme of 'notable accidental deaths and disappearances' provides a cohesive context for inclusion. While WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not valid reasons for retention, they highlight wiki's essential aspect of consistency. If numerous articles on similar topics exist and are maintained on here, it sets a precedent for what the community considers notable. This article meets the same criteria that justified the inclusion of similar cases as I have provided already. Edl-irishboy ( talk) 01:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
        • I'm not sure I agree with your If numerous articles on similar topics exist and are maintained on here, it sets a precedent for what the community considers notable. statement about other articles exising estblishing some kind of precedent that this article should also exist. There over six million Wikipedia articles and more keep being added everything. So, the fact that something exists, even if it has existed for a WP:LONGTIME, doesn't necessarily mean it should exist. I'm not saying those other articles need to be deleted; only that it's better to focus on why this article should be kept instead of trying to establish some kind of WP:SYN-ish/ WP:OR-ish type (in my opinion) of correspondance between it and other articles. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
          • As have emphasised many times by myself and others, there has been significant media attention and demonstrated interest in the Wiki community to Jay's disappearance and subsequent death, indicating its impact and public interest. The coverage by major news outlets highlights its relevance and importance. His case, given its circumstances and the attention it received, is a part of contemporary history in which Wiki serves as a repository of. I reiterate while the existence of other articles doesn't automatically justify retention, it is worth noting that similar cases have been documented here, indicating a community consensus on the notability of such events. Furthermore, his case provides educational value by offering the effects of social media that it had impacted on this case, as was the case of Nicola Bulley. The article can be expanded to include further details, the broader social implications of his death, responses from various community leaders and any subsequent changes in policies or public awareness campaigns. Edl-irishboy ( talk) 22:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
            • "indicating its impact and public interest"... in the short term. There's nothing to indicate long term notability per NEVENT, nor the GNG (It's why we avoid articles on short term bursts of news coverage). Perhaps this also applies to the other articles given but those should be considered case by case.
              The other way to view this is if you were just starting to look at these events, but ten years from now without the awareness of being in the midst of the media coverage. Based on what we know, it's unlikely that it would make sense to write such an article that has no lasting impact. That's where we need editors to keep NOTNEWS in mind —  Masem ( t) 22:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
              • 'There's nothing to indicate long term notability'..notability can sometimes emerge over time. Many historical events initially appeared to have fleeting impact but gained importance as societal context evolved. Future developments and new perspectives could bring a greater understanding of its impact. We shouldn't consider how events are viewed 'ten years from now' without current media awareness. The article represents a snapshot of public interest and societal issues of social media for example relevant today. This flawed perspective is precisely why preserving such articles is important, acknowledging that significance can develop over time, it helps maintain a comprehensive historical record. Historical examples such as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand demonstrate how events initially perceived as minor can later gain immense significance. Edl-irishboy ( talk) 22:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
                • It's more the reverse, the current flawed perspective is this need to rush to create articles on events that have a short term surge of coverage without waiting for the long term impact to reveal itself. That's why we have had to write NEVENT to try to get editors to get back to writing encyclopic articles aligned with NOTNEWS and not simply regurgitating every detail revealed by the news to give excessive weight on first party sourcing. This latter approach is far better at Wikinews, and if the event does show itself notable, then we can bring it back into en.wiki. —  Masem ( t) 22:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
                  • Jay Slater’s passing is not merely a transient news event. The community's response reflect lasting importance. Delaying the article's inclusion under the assumption that it can be resurrected later risks losing valuable context and immediate responses. It is not the reverse of good practice to maintain the article on here at this time. Suggesting that the article should be deferred to Wikinews for immediate coverage before being evaluated later fails to recognise that wiki is precisely the right platform for documenting significant events. This fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia's purpose. His death has had a considerable impact which is reflected in the coverage. It is not a matter of reversing proper procedure but about ensuring that significant events are documented comprehensively and timely on here. The notion that his article should be removed and only considered if it proves its notability over time does a disservice to wiki's role in preserving and reflecting on significant life events as they happen. The immediate reactions, governmental and professional acknowledgments such as here and here, as well as personal tributes are part of a larger narrative that wiki is well-positioned to document. Slater's article, supported by diverse sources, reflects the criteria for notability and the purpose of wiki to capture and document such events in real time. I am surprised only Jay Slater's article is being proposed for deletion and not others I have mentioned. Concluding, removing the article based on the premise that it might not be notable enough for wiki later undermines the value of preserving immediate and contextual information. Edl-irishboy ( talk) 23:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge the parts about social media to social media or some other article that talks about the effects of social media on society. This is the analytical and encyclopedic part of the article. The tragic death itself isn't encyclopedic and could be summed up in just a few sentences for background. As many people have said, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, and we shouldn't create articles as a memorial. We really do have to start following policy on this issue, or else Wikipedia is going to fill up tabloid stories as news sites get more desperate for clicks. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 00:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's a good point. To the extent there is any encyclopedic value (as opposed to news interest) in this article it's part of a broader theme on social media and society. That's best handled by incorporation into an article such as social media. As a standalone that doesn't work. DeCausa ( talk) 22:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Just going to add that if the article ends up being merged or redirected, then the non-free use of the main infobox image would need to be re assessed because the justification for non-free use would no longer be primary identification of the subject in main infobox of a stand-alone article about the subject. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: WP:NOTNEWS with much of the coverage being sensationalist and not indicative of the topic being likely to meet WP:LASTING. Java Hurricane 17:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • While wiki is not a newspaper, it does not mean that content on here is divorced from the standards of significant and sustained coverage. His death, while perhaps not an ongoing headline, has had a significant impact in its own right. The circumstances surrounding the death contributed to broader discussions on important issues such as social media and the conspiracy theories as with the case of Nicola Bulley. The long-term relevance of Jay's case cannot be discounted. Issues related to his death may evolve and become more significant over time. The claim that the coverage of his case is sensationalist does not align with the credibility of the sources reporting on the case. Major news outlets such as the BBC, Sky News, The Guardian, and The New York Times have provided day to day coverage. These are well-respected organisations known for their journalistic standards and rigorous reporting. Furthermore, I know shouldnt discuss other similar articles, but the case of Nicola Bulley, sensationalist tabloid newspaper articles have been sourced, and no one has said a word? <> <> Edl-irishboy ( talk) 22:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Sustained coverage is usually measured far beyond one month, given we write for a long term view. —  Masem ( t) 22:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
        Notability does not rely solely on the duration of coverage but rather on the depth and significance of the coverage too. The value of documenting an event is not merely about waiting for a lengthy period of coverage. The emphasis should be on the quality of the coverage rather than its duration. Edl-irishboy ( talk) 23:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
        No, we specifically say that a burst of coverage is not an indicator of notability. See WP:NSUSTAINED, and the essence of WP:NEVENT. We're not a newspaper and just because an event may get a large amount of news covers from quality sources still doesn't make the topic necessarily appropriate for a stand alone article if all that coverage is only in the short term. Masem ( t) 01:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
        From the WP:NSUSTAINED you have noted, it states 'a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it".' The case of Jay Slater has indeed garnered significant attention beyond the immediate burst of news coverage. The coverage from notable, reliable sources indicates a sustained interest and recognition of the article's significance on a wider scale. It has received attention not just within the United Kingdom but also internationally. The coverage of Jay Slater's death is not merely superficial but has involved detailed reporting, analysis, and commentary. While Wiki is not a newspaper which I've said countless times in my arguments, the case of Jay Slater went beyond the criteria of ephemeral media attention. I reiterate that I cannot stress enough why on earth this article would be proposed for deletion when there are multiple articles about accidental deaths that have been retained with no trouble; this proposal clearly goes against Wikipedia's policies and purpose and wholly undermines neutrality on here. Moreover, it is deeply unfair to the dedicated editors who have invested their time and effort in creating and refining these articles in good faith. Edl-irishboy ( talk) 22:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing but primary sources can exist; this happened just a month ago, so everything that has been written about the incident is in the context of the event. Wait until we have secondary sources — books, academic journals, retrospective journalism, etc., that look at the sources from the time of the event — rather than relying on primary sources, those written around the time of the event. Nyttend ( talk) 06:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    This is nonsensical. Secondary sources can " involve generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information". There are clear secondary sources in this article, as evidenced by the analysis and opinion pieces references provided, as seen here, here and here. The article contains a mixture of primary and secondary sources alike, so it is wholly absurd to comment about the non-existence of secondary sources in the article. Edl-irishboy ( talk) 22:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Edl-irishboy, at a certain point, you are WP:BLUDGEONING the AfD. – notwally ( talk) 23:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Resonant Distortion 11:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Absolutely enormous coverage in the UK media moves this well above the WP:NOTNEWS standard. Truly laughable nomination. No more NOTNEWS than the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Actually had a hell of a lot more coverage in the UK media than that minor incident. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    It is a laughable nomination to be honest. The significant coverage, not least in the UK, but globally, clearly goes above the WP:NOTNEWS standard. RIP Jay. Edl-irishboy ( talk) 23:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have reviewed the above discussion and checked several sources. Yes, the subject garnered a huge amount of media and news coverage, and yes - other stuff may exist. However my !vote to keep is based upon the steady emergence of WP:RS articles which are more secondary in nature - commenting and analyzing on not just the incident but also the surrounding events such as the sleuthing and trolling and nature of "high-profile missing person's cases". Examples of which, and some have been linked previously, include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. As such, in my view, I consider to presume that GNG is met. Resonant Distortion 15:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Comment A new article 1 suggests interest will drop off, at least in terms of tabloid news. However in doing so, is a secondary source analysing and comparing the case with the Disappearance of Damien Nettles and Jack O'Sullivan (from this year) and the article itself generates more sustained coverage instead of it's claim otherwise. Darrelljon ( talk) 07:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Boardmasters Festival line-ups

Boardmasters Festival line-ups (  | 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)

Contested WP:BLAR. Article is a huge magnet for WP:FANCRUFT that currently cites only one source. Only verifiable source to back the information is a WP:SPS: the website itself. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 21:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Anthony Hammer

Anthony Hammer (  | 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 on this previously unreferenced biography of an actor. I've found and added four references, but three are from the BBC Press Office so are not independent, and the fourth is a passing mention in a local newspaper. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. His two roles for which we have evidence are supporting characters as far as I can see, so I don't think he meets WP:NACTOR. The article has been tagged as possibly not meeting notability criteria since December 2023. Tacyarg ( talk) 18:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Knights of St Columba

Knights of St Columba (  | 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)

Multiple issues. Wikipedia:Notability not established and does not meet guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Additional citations needed since 2014. The 5 references are not sufficient to establish notability given that 4 of them coming from the organisation itself. Coldupnorth ( talk) 09:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Anarcho-monarchism

AfDs for this article:
Anarcho-monarchism (  | 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 lead sentence of this article describes the subject as a "fringe theoretical political philosophy", which is already quite the shaky start, but I think even this description gives it more credit than it's due, as the term is not popular enough to even show up in Google Ngrams results.

Of the cited sources in this article, and the ones I can see on Google Scholar, there appear to be three broad uses for the term: one is a throwaway term used by Peter Lamborn Wilson (see Grindon 2004; Fiscella 2009; Fiscella 2020); another a descriptor for Tolkien's political ideology, largely based on a single letter he wrote to his son (see Hart 2010; Siewers 2013; Hayes 2017; Davis 2021); and finally as a generic throw-away descriptor for neo-feudalism (see Turan 2023). One other source describes Rodolphe Crevelle, the founder of Lys Noir, as an "anarcho-royaliste", but again in a throwaway line that almost reads as mocking.

Something that quickly becomes apparent in all of the sources, is that none of them give significant coverage to the subject. Almost all of the references are throw-away mentions, sometimes relegated to footnotes. The only source that goes in any depth is a student paper, which is quite clearly not a reliable source. I doubt this article will grow any larger than the stub it currently exists as.

As I stated, calling this a "fringe theoretical political philosophy" is generous, as it doesn't appear to be a real thing at all. Its references are all throwaway lines, usually either attributed to Peter Lamborn Wilson or describing a single letter by Tolkien. There'd barely even be enough to merge into Wilson or Tolkien's own articles, the sourcing is that thin. As there appears to be no significant coverage of "anarcho-monarchism" in reliable sources, I'm recommending this article for deletion. Grnrchst ( talk) 08:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete, you make some great points. While the article is better than it's original form, it's lacking in many areas. Could it be transferred to my userspace for archival purposes? Microplastic Consumer ( talk) 16:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
If you plan to keep working on it, yes, the closing admin can help, per WP:DRAFTIFY. If you are looking to just keep it for posterity, I recommend saving an offline copy since Wikipedia does not hold drafts indefinitely. czar 19:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Magazine incorporating Angel Magazine

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Magazine incorporating Angel Magazine (  | 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)

Run-off-the-mill merchandise without impact ( WP:N). It has the same problems as List of Buffyverse guidebooks. Its existence is already summarized in one sentence in the TV show's main article. – sgeureka t• c 08:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

White Crane Films

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. One of the reference links is their company website. The other 2 reference links don’t work. The founders seem to be notable, but as per WP:ORGDEPTH, most of the search results throw up articles which speak about the founders, but there is no significant coverage on the company. Wikilover3509 ( talk) 6:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Jamie D'Souza

AfDs for this article:
Jamie D'Souza (  | 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 comedian; refunded after soft deletion but no changes made since article was restored. Fails notability under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER. The vast majority of sources cited in this article are Q&A interview/podcast interviews and thus ineligible to count toward notability as primary sources. There are a handful of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in sources like this and two Chortle reviews for D'Souza's Fringe performances. I would need to see additional WP:SIGCOV for this to clear the bar, and BEFORE searches (both at time of original nomination and after the refund) did not turn any up. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 21:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Crooked Boy

Crooked Boy (  | 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 article does not satisfy musical notability because it has no charting information and does not otherwise satisfy any of the musical notability criteria, and does not satisfy general notability because it does not refer to significant coverage by third parties. It was unilaterally moved from draft space to article space by the page creator with the edit summary It's been too long, so draftification is not appropriate. The Heymann criterion is to add charting information within six days.

Redirect to Ringo Starr discography#Extended plays: Album has been out for multiple months and has not received satisfactory coverage for notability as nominator has stated, nor any requisite charting/sales figures. No point in returning it to drafts if it's just not a notable release. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 07:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have added charting information to the article from Official Charts. It appears that there's only charting information for the title track, but it performed fairly well on the aforementioned chart, so there's no reason to delete it. There was no charting information on the article because it was created before it was released. The article also passes WP:GNG, since there are several articles discussing the EP from different sources. Just because the information isn't there doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Bandit Heeler ( talk) 11:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - It appears that this nomination was based on events in the draft system, and the nominator likely failed to do the WP:BEFORE search that is required before a deletion debate in order to investigate notability. Also, deciding that notability had not been established just because of spotty sources in the draft version is a violation of WP:NEXIST. The album received widespread reliable coverage the week of its release, and it and one of its songs made the charts in two countries months before this nomination. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. There seems to be significant coverage on reliable sources. However, there may be some confusion if the coverage is due to the notability of the EP, or because of the popularity of the artist Ringo Starr of which notability is not inherited may be invoked. Prof.PMarini ( talk) 10:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

De'Anyers family

De'Anyers family (  | 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:NOTGENEALOGY. I don't think any reliable sources cited or available elsewhere provide significant coverage of the article subject, instead providing lots of tangential mentions that do not by themselves confer notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This is not an accurrate statement, the sources listed are entirley comprehensive, I ask which ones precisely are 'tangential'.
Notability is sufficent as seen in the extensive sources primary and secondary. Starktoncollosal ( talk) 08:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I am happy to discuss which sources in particular do not provide significant coverage and see where we go from there, I am aware that there are yes a significant number of sources used which may convey this, however are consolidated by a number of reliable and imparital sources used in this article as well as other articles of a similar nature which cover landed families. Starktoncollosal ( talk) 08:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
proposing Keep, I have had a look through the source list comprehensivley and would very much like to discuss this and see if we can reach a consensus.at some point ? several main sources used for the article are all impartial and well known genealogical publications - Burkes, Ormerods, ect. The Battle Abbey Role by the Duchess of Cleveland published I believe in the 1890s covering the families on the scroll, also a book on a biography of the family. Other verified wikipedia pages exist for 3 members of the family listed on the page as well as others not mentioned (artists William Daniell and Thomas Daniell, and Thomas Daniel)
The issue is perhaps the interchangable use of De'Anyers and Daniell between sources however this I have found to be the historical case.. in looking to upload several Van Dyck portraits (Peter Daniell MP) and his sister and aunt I have found them to be listed as De'Anyers however it is the same family.
I am happy to explore and make any edits you may suggest ? (I wondered if perhaps some paragraphs could be slimmed down slightly). However based on pages existing for other identical landed families in Cheshire (several of whom intermarried and are included in the Daniell article) and based on historical significance, and the other reasons mentioned It has its place on wiki, and just needs fleshing out being comparativley newer, which I was activley working on :). Starktoncollosal ( talk) 00:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Which sources go into significant prose depth on the family? Keep in mind that genealogies and other directories are not SIGCOV. Coverage of individual members of the family does not count towards notability of the family. Primary sources and passing mentions do not count at all. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
source 6 - A Biography written on the family, and 1 certainly are the first to spring to mind. Can I ask the issue with primary sources coming from an academic writing background in early modern history i thought inclusion of these would bolster an articles notability and conslodiate its relevance ? I understand that for one or two members having pages not warranting a notability claim but surley the case can be made for, as seen in other noble families pages, members consistently throughout an extended time period having influence (as nobility did), - thus warranting notability ? Starktoncollosal ( talk) 19:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Ginny Holder

AfDs for this article:
Ginny Holder (  | 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 actress, Bar Holby City her roles have all been one-bit/minor roles, Cannot find anything in-depth on Google News (all are gossip/mentions), Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG – Davey2010 Talk 18:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep, as she had recurring roles in multiple shows — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterencio ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement on whether the subject passes or fails NACTOR.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Orsett Heath Academy

Orsett Heath Academy (  | 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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Try to focus on one Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge: Can probably be covered on Grays,_Essex#Secondary_education. IgelRM ( talk) 11:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply



Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also



England

Denny Draper

Denny Draper (  | 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)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Only secondary sources in the article and found during WP:BEFORE check are match reports with surface level coverage of the subject. AlexandraAVX ( talk) 16:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment (contributor). I tried improving this to bring it back to mainspace, based on elements of BASIC per SPORTBASIC (the guidelines that covers the notability of people and athletics), as a combination of secondary sources, rather than the need for exclusive SIGCOV (the guidelines that covers the notability of topics). So far there is Sky Sports and BBC for this, which I believe is beyond trivial, and borderline BASIC per Govvy comment. It's otherwise unfortunately that the BBC's Women's Football Show episodes are no longer available, as I remember distinct post-game coverage of Draper after her initial goal; that of her international career, prospects and style of play (beyond ROUTINE), that would certainly cross the threshold for basic notability (people and sports-related). I'll try find a copy of this somewhere to see if it could be used as a cite av media ref, even if not possible as an online source. I think it's also fair to assume basic based on "they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level", that of being top scorer in the U17 Euro qualifying, as subjectively the U17 Euros are the highest level of competition at that age range, though I can understand how this is intended for senior competitions only, as well as only a guide to likelihood of notability, as opposed to notability itself. Either way, it wouldn't be too much of a loss if the page get's deleted, as I suspect there will be SIGCOV soon enough for it to return. It would be unfortunate for an active WSL player to have their page deleted, but based on policy/coverage it'd be understandable. I can only assume it's age-related as to why there isn't further coverage, given she would be one of the very few WSL players to have scored a league goal and not have an article. CNC ( talk) 16:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Knights of St Columba

Knights of St Columba (  | 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)

Multiple issues. Wikipedia:Notability not established and does not meet guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Additional citations needed since 2014. The 5 references are not sufficient to establish notability given that 4 of them coming from the organisation itself. Coldupnorth ( talk) 09:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Palamon Capital Partners

Palamon Capital Partners (  | 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)

nonnoitable private equity firm - Altenmann >talk 23:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Non notable corporation with no sources except that they bought another company. Wikipedia is not a directory or catalog of every business. I do complement the article's author, however. They did a wonderful job in formatting. Bluefist talk 02:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

White Crane Films

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. One of the reference links is their company website. The other 2 reference links don’t work. The founders seem to be notable, but as per WP:ORGDEPTH, most of the search results throw up articles which speak about the founders, but there is no significant coverage on the company. Wikilover3509 ( talk) 6:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Wright Karts

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. The only reference link is their company website. The company seems to have supported many famous race drivers, but as per WP:ORGDEPTH, most of the articles speak about the racers and there is no significant coverage on the company itself. Wikilover3509 ( talk) 6:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

EasyJet Flight 6074

EasyJet Flight 6074 (  | 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 incident and WP:NOTNEWS BasketballDog21 ( talk) 01:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Easyjet Flight 6074 (G-EZAC) was also used as a case study across multiple studies years after the incident which does demonstrate the event's notability:
  • The incident was listed in EASA's list of recurrent defects:
  • I would be inclined to express a keep opinion if, among other things, this incident was used as a case study on an ongoing basis, but I couldn't find anything in the first two English-language examples that you cited other than the references section. Can you point me to some specific page numbers in any of those references (even non-English) to show how this was used to show lasting impact on the aviation industry? The PDFs are more than a hundred pages long each, and I searched for the airliner name and the registration of the aircraft, but couldn't find what you were referring to. The current version of the article suggests that a scary technical problem occurred, many bad things could have happened, but the flight eventually landed safely. I'm not yet seeing the lasting notability that can be added to the article, or presumed notability associated with a hull loss or crash with injuries or fatalities. RecycledPixels ( talk) 04:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I failed to precise this but the incident, in most the papers, do not directly mention the incident but instead use the incident as a source, reference, among many others. If you search for the registration, you should normally be able to find mentions of the incident in the sources section. Per the order of pdf files given above, the specific page numbers are: p.337; p.222; p.26; p.172; p.184; p.20; p.10. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 10:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Aviationwikiflight, you've shown that the incident has been widely studied, and that it led to procedural and design changes. The article could of course, if kept, be updated accordingly. But does it make the flight notable enough to justify a standalone article rather than just adding a sentence or two to the existing mention on List of accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family? I'm not convinced yet... Rosbif73 ( talk) 14:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: Nominator has been blocked for being a disreputable sock. Borgenland ( talk) 13:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Edgar Chibaka

Edgar Chibaka (  | 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)

should be deleted due to the lack of significant independent coverage that meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG), relying instead on primary sources, company related news and not significant mentions. LusikSnusik ( talk) 10:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete interviews are a poor way to establish notability and if he owns the Nyasa Times then it isn't independent enough to establish notability. Traumnovelle ( talk) 21:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Traumnovelle Alternatively, it makes sense to redirect it to their company on Wikipedia that the subject found, thus Nyasa Times. Again, not all sources are interviews. Furthermore, this AfD was made by someone at random who was even reported at ANI here and there is even a discussion on their talk page about their nominations. Tumbuka Arch ( talk) 07:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't oppose a redirect. I looked at the references now. I presumed the sources you mentioned were the strongest sources. The strongest source appears to be the Yorkshire Evening Post but it isn't enough for notability in my opinion. Traumnovelle ( talk) 07:35, 21 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) 07:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Akin Gazi

Akin Gazi (  | 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 actor. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Cowlibob ( talk) 14:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi, @ Cowlibob: I suppose that WP:NACTOR is more likely to apply. Regarding its criteria: 'Such a person may be considered notable if:
1) The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or
2) The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.'
I think 1) is more likely to apply. I can see from his page that he has appeared in almost two dozen films and television shows which are sufficiently notable to have their own article. Do you accept that they are notable? If so, is your case simply that his roles are not significant? How do you believe that a significant role is defined for the purposes of notability in WP:NACTOR? Is there a guideline or 'case law' supporting this? Thanks.

Jontel ( talk) 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Weak KEEP Gazi's article seemingly meets the criteria of WP:NACTOR i.e. 'Such a person may be considered notable if the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows...' in that he has appeared in multiple (around two dozen) productions which have their own articles (and so are presumably notable) and his generally mid ranking in credited roles are presumably sufficiently significant. The case for keeping the article is strengthened by a career duration at this level of almost two decades WP:SUSTAINED. However, without searching through the reviews of his productions, there appears to be little independent reliable secondary coverage of him, which would be required to pass WP:BASIC. The key guiding text appears to be: 'People are likely to be notable if they meet (WP:NACTOR)...(However)...meeting (WP:NACTOR) does not guarantee that a subject should be included.' i.e. WP:NACTOR alone is not sufficient for notability. Given his roles in so many notable productions, is there a case for giving editors time to find the coverage necessary to meet WP:BASIC, as suggested in WP:ATD, by leaving it for a period? Jontel ( talk) 21:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Orsett Heath Academy

Orsett Heath Academy (  | 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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Try to focus on one Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge: Can probably be covered on Grays,_Essex#Secondary_education. IgelRM ( talk) 11:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Others


Northern Ireland

Christopher McGimpsey

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. Being a councillor does not automatically confer notability, and criteria for GNG isn’t satisfied either. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Others

Scotland

Scottish Young Conservatives

Scottish Young Conservatives (  | 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)

Zero secondary sources. Completely fails WP:NORG. Little more than an advertisement and directory listing. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Knights of St Columba

Knights of St Columba (  | 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)

Multiple issues. Wikipedia:Notability not established and does not meet guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Additional citations needed since 2014. The 5 references are not sufficient to establish notability given that 4 of them coming from the organisation itself. Coldupnorth ( talk) 09:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Daryll Meggatt

Daryll Meggatt (  | 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. A search in the archives found no SIGCOV just mentions in match reports. Dougal18 ( talk) 13:56, 23 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) 16:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Found a few interviews ( 1, 2), but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Lean towards Keep Per sources above, plus [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], And he has played way over 100 professional football league games in Scotland. I don't get why you want to delete such an article on professional Scottish footballer. @ GiantSnowman: Take your pick on sources, there are loads more tabloid articles on the guy. That's just my five minutes of looking. And I bet there are OFFLINE also! :/ Govvy ( talk) 21:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Comment You have linked to 7 sources. The first 6 are namedrops that do not provide SIGCOV of Meggatt. The seventh is from the Scottish Sun which is an unreliable source. NFOOTBALL is no more so stop making the appearances argument. Dougal18 ( talk) 08:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
      Agree with Dougal I'm afraid - none of these are SIGCOV, and the Sun is trash. Giant Snowman 16:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
      • I don't know why you guys don't do the research or look for sources. Dougal18 has absolutely no interest in constructing wikipedia articles from my point of view. He constantly wants to delete what I call decent articles. Like I said above that's what I found in five minutes yesterday, yes the article is heavy on primary sources and sport stat sources. I provided an assortment of some basic secondary to back the primary sources up, (that's why I said lean towards keep I didn't say straight out keep.) But that doesn't negative anything, I never mentioned NFOOTBALL either, I go by WP:BASIC, and so many many people seem to ignore you can have a build on secondary sources. Take one of Scotlands newspaper websites go enter his name and see what you find. For instance, The Scottish Herald, how many results are there. A non notable person wouldn't have that many results for his name. People go on about it's always routine coverage! But all football is pretty much routine now, it's a paradoxical sport, routine coverage is not a bad thing and the more the better. SIGCOV pfft, you don't need to follow so blindly a policy and yes it's a policy it's not a rule of state. Apart from JTtheOG no one else provided sources, I've done just that and yet you want to persecute my findings. That really is pathetic and bias towards deletion without a true peer review. Govvy ( talk) 09:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nowhere close to SIGCOV. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:47, 25 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


Wales

Knights of St Columba

Knights of St Columba (  | 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)

Multiple issues. Wikipedia:Notability not established and does not meet guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Additional citations needed since 2014. The 5 references are not sufficient to establish notability given that 4 of them coming from the organisation itself. Coldupnorth ( talk) 09:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Others



Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/United_Kingdom&oldid=1236948743"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE