Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom

WP:AFD/UK

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

See also:

Scan for United Kingdom related AfDs

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

United Kingdom

Sag & Tre

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

Record labels are notoriously difficult; often the case the artists and the music are notable, and sourcing notability for the label is more tricky. In this case, neither the music nor the artists appear notable, yet we have a page for the label. In a WP:BEFORE I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this record label to meet WP:GNG, and that is before going anywhere near WP:NORG. I'd be happy to be proven wrong - but deletion is now proposed as Sag & Tre does not appear to meet any WP criteria for a standalone page. ResonantDis_tortion 20:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. ResonantDis_tortion 20:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I think the article meets WP:GNG but nowhere near WP:NORG, nor does it need to meet WP:NORG. Resources for the label are scarce. Soybean46 (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am the owner of Sag & Tre :) Soybean46 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James McEvoy (teacher)

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

Not clear why this biography was created. Career as a teacher does not appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia per WP:BIO Seaweed (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable at all. Probably created by a relative as a WP:MEMORIAL. Article is just a close paraphrasing of his obituary (which was likely based on what his relatives said about him). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Military, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing for notability as a military person or an educator. The paraphrasing of the obituary isn't helping. I can't find anything else about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, created by SPA. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have nothing to work off of here... Snowycats (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could be WP:CSD#G7: article provides no indication of what he did that might have had any significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Garuda ^Talk! 17:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wordhunt

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I wrote on the talk page while you were writing this, there is a lot of coverage of the Wordhunt to be found in Proquest. I added several reliable sources (Guardian, Scotsman, Chronicle of Higher Education), and the Boston Globe was already cited in the article, but there are also articles in Proquest in The Times (several), The Observer, Belfast Telegraph, Derby Evening Telegraph, Daily Post and even The Hindustan Times and Pittsburgh Post - Gazette. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Television, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna McKenzie

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

Article does not appear to meet WP:NBIO from a Google search and so should be deleted or redirected to Samayal Express. Sahaib (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is a stub being expanded. Google News has credible sources. The individual's notability does not exclusively come from Samayal Express, thus should not be redirected there. EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, Tamil Nadu, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I apologise for violating WP:NPPHOUR, I am new to the job and was a bit too eager to reduce the backlog. Sahaib (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack C. Mancino

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

This article about an Hungarian-born British artist, actor and musician is poorly sourced. Large sections of text are unreferenced. There are seven inline citations, of which five are to IMDb. The one to the Chicago Tribune is geo-locked for me. The other just says "Feszültség és szabadság Lisszabonban", and has been tagged as needing a full citation since 2020. Googling the phrase led me to https://holdkatlan.hu/index.php/szemle/lapszemle/3559-feszultseg-es-szabadsag-lisszabonban which doesn't appear to mention this person, although I do not understand Hungarian. The list of external links doesn't include any reliable sources which could be added as references. I have carried out WP:BEFORE for Jack C. Mancino, Jack Mancino and the alternative name given, Balogh Csaba, and not found references to add. There is an artist called Csaba Balogh who may be notable, but his year and place of birth are different. I don't think this article demonstrates that Mancino meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NARTIST, WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSICIAN. Tacyarg (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Bands and musicians, Hungary, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! 1. please clarify which "Large sections of text are unreferenced". The newly inserted sections are films and music will be sourced soon. IMDb is a good source for referencing filmographies. Can Soundcloud, Amazon, Spotify or Apple Music or any other streaming site for music be used for referencing discographies? Thank you for helping. 2. It is possible that the owner of the referenced link has changed their site that was correct when it was inserted. This page has been on Wikipedia more than 15 years. Karlmayer5000 (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The whole of the Biography section is unreferenced, as is the sub-section Early classical stage under Work, and the sub-section Music in the section Acting credits and accolades. IMDb is not a reliable source: see WP:IMDb. The other sites you mention are not reliable sources, but I don't believe discographies need sourcing - as with bibliographies, the existence of the works can be assumed. Tacyarg (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much. Can you please point me web platforms that qualifies as good source of references to understand the policies. Karlmayer5000 (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the reliable sources link and the guidance on your Talk page. The teahouse may also be helpful. Tacyarg (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack C. Mancino has written several comic books. Can I link them as references in the section I am about to make on this page called: Author?

Source link: https://www.amazon.com/stores/Jack-C-Mancino/author/B0BZJGN477?ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true NorAnditoth5 (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon is not a reliable source. If there are reviews of these books in reliable sources, those would be appropriate references. Tacyarg (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find any significant coverage anywhere. The first citation refers to this site, which does not provide significant coverage. The Tribune piece just contains a trivial mention. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the Chicago Tribune article he was mentioned by the writer in connection with a Hollywood photographer's art painting collection and in the article Mr. Mancino's works were positively compared to Jean-Michel Basquiat who was one of America's most iconic abstract artists. 37.76.13.207 (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in and only use a single account when commenting. (Assuming you are User:Karlmayer5000 and/or User:NorAnditoth5) The artist was only mentioned in a single sentence. A brief mention by a photographer is a clear example of trivial coverage, nowhere near the significant coverage requirement for a source to count towards notability as Wikipedia defines it. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a message from Wiki not to comment with Karl Mayer,,,I dont know the reason. You guys look like just want to delete the article anyway so go ahead! Karlmayer5000 (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia cant accept bio from the artists own mouth, that really needs an update, this article was created in 2009 used by wikipedia, there are many articles with much fewer sources still on wiki. Wiki must be about info and not about notability. Not every artist pays for mainstream articles to get attention. 2001:4C4E:28C4:3000:5DBE:155A:35DD:2FCE (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find reliable sourcing for the biographical or artistic claims made in this article. Source assessment of current sources below. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTK2uNBdUZE	self published interview	✘ No
Feszültség és szabadság Lisszabonba	incomplete citation	? Unknown
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2013/05/18/working-art-3/	paywall	? Unknown
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14840232/	IMDB	✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8503240/	IMDB	✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13094566/	IMDB	✘ No
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/148014120-felix-gruber	Goodreads listing	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment. NorAnditoth5 (talk · contribs), I'm a bit baffled by the reference you have just added to muveszkek.hu. When I put the article through translation, it says, in part, "Born in the heart of the Renaissance era, Mancino was an individual who dared to dream, to ask questions and dared to create". Mancino was not born during the Renaissance - is this a reliable source? Tacyarg (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCoffee Club

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

Fails WP:GNG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 03:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 03:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find anything for notability. There are a lot of trivial mentions to local clubs. The best sources with significant coverage I could find include: Local news source where the reporter has a conflict of interest (went to a meeting about a startup funded by her organization). Masters thesis, not reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. readwrite.com article, a website that appears to have little to no editorial oversight. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naftali Schiff

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article reads a lot like a CV. The piece "Rabbi Naftali Schiff: Aish UK's wonderwall" by The Jewish Chronicle might be one source that counts towards notability, but other than that, I haven't been able to find much. Mooonswimmer 15:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Thanks for the nomination -- I had thought about AfDing this article when originally creating Josef Lewkowicz. Most of the sources currently in the article are poor, and it needs a WP:TNT. But there are multiple, in-depth profiles in the Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News over the years [1], [2], [3], multiple=page coverage in a book [4], with additional coverage of Schiff role in his charities [5], [6], [7], that could suffice for notability. Longhornsg (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a professional at work. Misses the bar of the GNG. gidonb (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asset.tv

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Tagged for multiple issues. Imcdc Contact 03:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 03:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete created as a promotional article, this has always lacked sourcing showing sufficient notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A company whose literal existence is filming press releases for a certain field and outside the investment world, has little to no notability by design. Nate • (chatter) 00:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mallzee

AfDs for this article:

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

Mallzee shut down in 2021. The article was flagged for neutrality and promotional content in August 2017, it is written mostly like a self-interested ad, and with the lack of any changes to rectify those issues or any edits to indicate the business shut down evidences minimal interest in article. At present, I feel the article doesn't provide encyclopaedic value and given the years of opportunity since the closure of the business without as much as an update indicating such, I doubt the quality of this article will improve. ~ Chip 🐺 08:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Chip 🐺 08:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it passes WP:NORG, even considering some articles, the coverage was incidental. ~ Chip 🐺 08:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Software, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ale Conners of London

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

Fails WP:LISTN as not having received attention as a group. An individual appointment sometimes gets a mention in a different source (though most of these aren't independent), but that's about it. Fram (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to look for additional mentions and references on this subject. I look forward to receiving the results of the deletion discussion, and will of course be happy with whatever decision the group comes to. Tippylegend (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as WP:INDISCRIMINATE, there's no encyclopedic information here that isn't on the article for Ale conner. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 09:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Revolution (group)

AfDs for this article:

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

Defunct minor Trotskyist group. No demonstration of meeting GNG within the article, with sourcing being from self-published sources (mostly their own) so violates WP:ABOUTSELF. Checks on scholar show no notable academic discussion of the group. No likelihood of improvement and no obvious redirect targets.

Delete. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Trotskyist internationals#Defunct. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at this, problem with this redirect is that there's no reliable evidence they ever became an established "International", just that they had a handful of supporters outside of the UK. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you just described half of all Trotskyist internationals? :) FWIW, WP:NLIST does not require individual entries in a list to be notable, just the class itself. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn while that first comment is definitely something I agree with, with this one it's not the lack of notability but the complete lack of any evidence it was effectively organised beyond the UK. There doesn't appear to be any list of national sections elsewhere, so I don't think it meets the definition of even being an international. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In French, I can find this, a translation from the Permanent Revolution group, on the site of their French sympathising group, indicating that 33 members from Great Britain, Ireland, Australia and Sweden were expelled from the LCI. At the end of the statement it indicates that the Australian section of the League (WPA) has joined them, along with members from Sweden and Ireland. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

English Young Liberals

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

No independent or third-party sources. Structure section just consists of a list of names which seems like WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in Google News, one passing mention in Google Books. Orange sticker (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Orange sticker (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but in dire need of improvement — I would certainly prefer it being kept as opposed to deleted. Failing that I would prefer it be draft-ified or the like.

I had previously stub-ified the artcle by removing vast amounts of content in this edit and here. I was hesitant to do such but believed it to be needed due to verifibility concerns and to avoid a directory article. After that I'd put it on my radar of pages needing additional content.

I believe that EYL scrapes GNG, from a quick gander using the book search, it seems to be mentioned at least in more than one book (Though firefox seems to be preventing me from using preview to look in the books rather annoyingly), though as you said no significant news coverage. I may be mistaken, but I believe the EYL have had some different names in their past as well which may have better coverage, but I'm struggling to recall or pull up what they were (Which doesn't really help the case I suppose).

I'm under no illusion that this isn't a weak case from me however, and I believe you're right to have brought this up Bejakyo (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the book mentions may be a reference to National League of Young Liberals which is not the same org Czarking0 (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first two hits I found in Google books are the merest passing mentions, not wp:sigcov. I also proposed a redirect to Liberal Democrats (UK) in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Young_Liberals_(UK) after making this nomination.

Orange sticker (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It would make significantly more sense to merge English YL into Young Liberals (UK). However, I note that there is no entry for Scottish Young Liberals (it redirects to Scottish Liberal Democrats), and that other political youth groups (such as Scottish Labour Students) have individual sub-national organisations with their own pages. For the sake of neutrality all such should be treated consistently. Espatie (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a merge should be considered, as I opined below, however: "...I note that there is no entry for Scottish Young Liberals (it redirects to Scottish Liberal Democrats), and that other political youth groups (such as Scottish Labour Students) have individual sub-national organisations with their own pages." "Other stuff exists" or "other stuff does not exist" is not a reason for deletion (nor for keeping a page) nor does it violate WP:NPOV (unless you can show that there are editors purposely suppressing X and/or purposely supporting Y). The only case I'd say is acceptable for this sort of consideration is during AfDs or otherwise 'official' discussions... quoting or citing official decisions/judgements/etc as precedent(s) is/are acceptable. MWFwiki (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not seeing how this passes WP:GNG. The group's existence (and merely mentioning its existence as fact) does not constitute notability (nor coverage of notability). Merge into English Liberal Democrats would be supported. MWFwiki (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. No coverage in independent reliable sources. A merge would be acceptable. The English Liberal Democrats would probably be a good place for this content. In the intro to that article it says that this umbrella title (or group?) covers about eleven groups including youth groups. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see enough well-sourced content there for a merge. All of the article's citations are primary sources from the party's website or social media accounts. --Tserton (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

England

Geoff Tabin

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF. Fairweather Foundation is a small non-notable foundation. Risker (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, England, Connecticut, Illinois, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how Fairweather Foundation is relevant to Geoff Tabin's notability. It is just the funding source of his current chair position, which seems relatively minor when compared to other things that make him notable such as him co-founding the Himalayan Cataract Project (the other founder has a page), being the fourth person to reach the top of the seven summits, and helping invent bungee jumping.

I believe Geoff is very notable based on the guidelines I have read. Beyond what I said above, there is a book about him and Sanduk (second suns), he himself is a published author, and there are articles written about him in magazines such as national geographic (ie https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/restoring-vision-for-south-sudan-dispatches-from-the-duk-lost-boys-clinic). Moreover, he was on the cover for the now defunct National Geographic Adventure magazine, who's Wikipedia page uses his image!

If there are other ways in which the article fails to pass notability thresholds, please let me know what I am missing, but again, I think the Fairweather Foundation is totally irrelevent. CallipygianConnoisseur (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to this, using the news button ont the nominated for deletion box shows articles about Dr. Tabin from CBS, The Economist, and Outside magazine. CallipygianConnoisseur (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find I cannot agree with the nomination. Subject appears to have a named chair at a major institution, and evidently has had substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity per [8]. ResonantDis_tortion 09:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Brown (footballer, born 1887)

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

Stub article about a little known soccer player with only three sources that don't make him seem particularly noteworthy. I also did some digging outside and I still didn't find much about him. The helper5667 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The helper5667 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Shellwood (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ignorant nomination. This is a player who made 28 appearances in the English Football League, the premier competition at that time - and of course you're going to struggle to find online sources about someone born in 1887! Did you look in the Newspaper archives? Giant Snowman 10:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not to be confused with the Bobby Brown's born in the 20th century. I'd be shocked if this player wasn't notable, as was playing in the top tier of English football in the 1907–08 season.[9] There would have been plenty of coverage from numerous sources at that time, difficult to find but would be easy to establish notability with the right sources given popularity of English football back then. CNC (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sag & Tre

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

Record labels are notoriously difficult; often the case the artists and the music are notable, and sourcing notability for the label is more tricky. In this case, neither the music nor the artists appear notable, yet we have a page for the label. In a WP:BEFORE I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this record label to meet WP:GNG, and that is before going anywhere near WP:NORG. I'd be happy to be proven wrong - but deletion is now proposed as Sag & Tre does not appear to meet any WP criteria for a standalone page. ResonantDis_tortion 20:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. ResonantDis_tortion 20:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I think the article meets WP:GNG but nowhere near WP:NORG, nor does it need to meet WP:NORG. Resources for the label are scarce. Soybean46 (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am the owner of Sag & Tre :) Soybean46 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Phillips

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

BLP of an OnlyFans model whose claim to fame is having sex with 100 men. Coverage is all from within the past week or so and largely consists of deprecated sources and low-quality tabloids. Fails WP:N, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:BLP, WP:NOT, etc. Spicy (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Spicy (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would move it to draft space then and see if she gets more coverage.

I only made this page since I read about her and saw that there was a German article about her but not an English one. Laura240406 (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A draft already exists at Draft:Lily Phillips. Spicy (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah okay then I'm also for a deletion

(btw the German Wikipedia's quality standards seem to be a lot worse than the English one's) Laura240406 (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BLP1E violation, utterly non-notable other than this event. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: see my comment Laura240406 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON.--Laun chba ller 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a draft that covers the main points and uses more reliable sources. Laura240406 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All five of the sources currently used in the draft are in yellow and red at WP:UPSD. I removed the three it highlighted in the article.--Laun chba ller 20:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tabish Khan (art critic)

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

Biography of an art critic that fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources in article are limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCE WP:INTERVIEWS, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in media coverage of other topics, primary source bios and other non-independent sources. WP:BEFORE search turns up lots of his own writing but no independent WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Visual arts, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the writer is known within the contemporary art scene in the UK and is currently active suggesting there may be more additions to the page in future. While I agree that searching for the author turns up lots of his own writing, a look at other art critics, writers and journalists with Wikipedia entries returns similar results. In terms of independent coverage, this article does include links to notable outlets that have sought his views on art stories and artworks. Suggestions for improvement rather than deletion may be a better course of action. Londoneditor284 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — Londoneditor284 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep these are good points. It would be a diservice to Wikipedia if well-known critics were expunged Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although this person is mostly only known within the contemporary British art scene, they have contributed numerous articles, interviews, and features in multiple outlets and have been quoted in many sources (as can be seen from the citations). They are clearly significant enough within their own field to warrant keeping this article. Any suggestions to improve the article would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.218.212 (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — 80.45.218.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Izno (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations in sources are not enough to demonstrate notability (except in a limited case for certain academics), and authoring articles isn't either. What SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources can you offer? Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me do some digging and get back to you. The nature of the subject (someone who writes about other people's artwork for a living) makes it difficult by definition to have many SIGCOV sources. I feel this should be taken into account? 80.45.218.212 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel this way, that's a great discussion topic for WP:VILLAGEPUMP, not for a discussion where we can't change policy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could Dclemens1971 help in finding any better sources for this person/article? I've looked at pages for other critics too but can't seem to see how they fit the criteria if we are super-strict with SIGCOV Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike your second !vote; editors are only allowed one !vote in an AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the entire point of the WP:BEFORE search (which I did) was to find qualifying sources, and I didn't find them. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"[A] search turns up lots of his own writing but no independent [sources]" - isn't this exactly what we should expect though? Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's what we should expect from a person who's not notable, I suppose. And as already mentioned, please strike through your duplicative !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford BioLabs

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

It seems like this article was entirely created for promotional reasons. The only thing notable about the company is their product, TRX2. An article for the founder Thomas Whitfield also exists, which seems to be full of promotional content as well. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all three articles to one, probably to TRX2. There's just about enough for one article here but certainly not for three. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lars B. Andersen

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

Non-notable businessman fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources are:

WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of him in the context of his company ([10], [11], [12], [13])
WP:PRIMARYSOURCES ([14], [15], [16], [17])
More trivial mentions in the context of a GWR attempt that has since been superseded or his election activities.

Nothing else qualifying came up in a WP:BEFORE search, and the civic appointments are not so rare that they constitute awards per WP:ANYBIO #1. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Norway, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This person meets the notability criteria with significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. That he was selected by the now UK prime minister (who must have visited many companies that day) is significant and adds to notability. Teacher2019 (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable businessman. No WP:SIGCOV, trivial mentions in media; 'civic appointments' aren't notable (anyone working in the City can become a "Freeman of the City"). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article had some broken links, and they are now fixed. WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS: articles from government sites and major label magazine with picture of him seems not to be trivial. Found and added mentions from Portuguese [[18]] and US main newsmedia sources [[19]][[20]] with interviews (see article). Multiple articles discuss him at length as the subject of the article, so article fulfils WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC: significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Zralba (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The government sites are discussions of his company that trivially mention him. The Labels and Labelling magazines source is a WP:TRADES publication that is considered non-independent. The Q&A WP:INTERVIEWS you linked are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES since they consist entirely of his answers; they are not independent sources and do not count toward notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Siobhan

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG, only mention in a to me seemingly reliable publication is a mention of three sentences. Red Bull source seems to be an interview, probably not intellectually independent. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Video games, Internet, and England. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wordhunt

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I wrote on the talk page while you were writing this, there is a lot of coverage of the Wordhunt to be found in Proquest. I added several reliable sources (Guardian, Scotsman, Chronicle of Higher Education), and the Boston Globe was already cited in the article, but there are also articles in Proquest in The Times (several), The Observer, Belfast Telegraph, Derby Evening Telegraph, Daily Post and even The Hindustan Times and Pittsburgh Post - Gazette. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Television, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna McKenzie

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

Article does not appear to meet WP:NBIO from a Google search and so should be deleted or redirected to Samayal Express. Sahaib (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is a stub being expanded. Google News has credible sources. The individual's notability does not exclusively come from Samayal Express, thus should not be redirected there. EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, Tamil Nadu, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I apologise for violating WP:NPPHOUR, I am new to the job and was a bit too eager to reduce the backlog. Sahaib (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Stevens (footballer, born 2000)

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

No indication of passing WP:GNG. All I found were transactional announcements (1) and match reports (2). JTtheOG (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Wales. JTtheOG (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a confusing search given the goalkeeper (born 1997) with the same name, who has definitely more coverage. However for the subject in question I also didn't find any sigcov. CNC (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP As jack stevens born (2000) is also a player of decent coverage amongst national league fans. MoKhan123 (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to provide evidence of in-depth coverage? JTtheOG (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. By the way, not all match reports follow the same news format. Although those are normally stories of the match as the name suggests, some of them may focus exclusively on a specific footballer and describes them in-depth. This one is such an example for the latter case, thus can be potential SIGCOV. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johl Younger

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

Fails GNG and SPORTBASIC. Canary757 (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports, and Australia. Canary757 (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jenson Kendrick

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

Fails GNG and SPORTBASIC, No notable success. Canary757 (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports, and England. Canary757 (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Tinsdale

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

Hull City U21 player, yet to make debut for a senior team. I only found WP:ROUTINE coverage[21] and passing mention,[22] no indiciation of WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. Suggest Draftify or Delete until notability is established. CNC (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Football. CNC (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CNC (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack C. Mancino

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

This article about an Hungarian-born British artist, actor and musician is poorly sourced. Large sections of text are unreferenced. There are seven inline citations, of which five are to IMDb. The one to the Chicago Tribune is geo-locked for me. The other just says "Feszültség és szabadság Lisszabonban", and has been tagged as needing a full citation since 2020. Googling the phrase led me to https://holdkatlan.hu/index.php/szemle/lapszemle/3559-feszultseg-es-szabadsag-lisszabonban which doesn't appear to mention this person, although I do not understand Hungarian. The list of external links doesn't include any reliable sources which could be added as references. I have carried out WP:BEFORE for Jack C. Mancino, Jack Mancino and the alternative name given, Balogh Csaba, and not found references to add. There is an artist called Csaba Balogh who may be notable, but his year and place of birth are different. I don't think this article demonstrates that Mancino meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NARTIST, WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSICIAN. Tacyarg (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Bands and musicians, Hungary, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! 1. please clarify which "Large sections of text are unreferenced". The newly inserted sections are films and music will be sourced soon. IMDb is a good source for referencing filmographies. Can Soundcloud, Amazon, Spotify or Apple Music or any other streaming site for music be used for referencing discographies? Thank you for helping. 2. It is possible that the owner of the referenced link has changed their site that was correct when it was inserted. This page has been on Wikipedia more than 15 years. Karlmayer5000 (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The whole of the Biography section is unreferenced, as is the sub-section Early classical stage under Work, and the sub-section Music in the section Acting credits and accolades. IMDb is not a reliable source: see WP:IMDb. The other sites you mention are not reliable sources, but I don't believe discographies need sourcing - as with bibliographies, the existence of the works can be assumed. Tacyarg (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much. Can you please point me web platforms that qualifies as good source of references to understand the policies. Karlmayer5000 (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the reliable sources link and the guidance on your Talk page. The teahouse may also be helpful. Tacyarg (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack C. Mancino has written several comic books. Can I link them as references in the section I am about to make on this page called: Author?

Source link: https://www.amazon.com/stores/Jack-C-Mancino/author/B0BZJGN477?ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true NorAnditoth5 (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon is not a reliable source. If there are reviews of these books in reliable sources, those would be appropriate references. Tacyarg (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find any significant coverage anywhere. The first citation refers to this site, which does not provide significant coverage. The Tribune piece just contains a trivial mention. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the Chicago Tribune article he was mentioned by the writer in connection with a Hollywood photographer's art painting collection and in the article Mr. Mancino's works were positively compared to Jean-Michel Basquiat who was one of America's most iconic abstract artists. 37.76.13.207 (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in and only use a single account when commenting. (Assuming you are User:Karlmayer5000 and/or User:NorAnditoth5) The artist was only mentioned in a single sentence. A brief mention by a photographer is a clear example of trivial coverage, nowhere near the significant coverage requirement for a source to count towards notability as Wikipedia defines it. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a message from Wiki not to comment with Karl Mayer,,,I dont know the reason. You guys look like just want to delete the article anyway so go ahead! Karlmayer5000 (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia cant accept bio from the artists own mouth, that really needs an update, this article was created in 2009 used by wikipedia, there are many articles with much fewer sources still on wiki. Wiki must be about info and not about notability. Not every artist pays for mainstream articles to get attention. 2001:4C4E:28C4:3000:5DBE:155A:35DD:2FCE (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find reliable sourcing for the biographical or artistic claims made in this article. Source assessment of current sources below. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTK2uNBdUZE	self published interview	✘ No
Feszültség és szabadság Lisszabonba	incomplete citation	? Unknown
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2013/05/18/working-art-3/	paywall	? Unknown
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14840232/	IMDB	✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8503240/	IMDB	✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13094566/	IMDB	✘ No
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/148014120-felix-gruber	Goodreads listing	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment. NorAnditoth5 (talk · contribs), I'm a bit baffled by the reference you have just added to muveszkek.hu. When I put the article through translation, it says, in part, "Born in the heart of the Renaissance era, Mancino was an individual who dared to dream, to ask questions and dared to create". Mancino was not born during the Renaissance - is this a reliable source? Tacyarg (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julian R. Day

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

I am unable to find any news articles or publications about Julian R. Day (though it was hard to filter out results for the Julian day). This is a similar situation to User:Allykmac's other article, Graeme Brosnan (AfD here).

Almost all the citations are primary sources, ie. company/conference bios written by Day himself; the sole secondary source, "How $115 led to over 200 court appearances", is a review of his book on someone's personal blog. I don't believe Julian Day meets notability requirements. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Computing, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a bit of local news-y coverage of his charitable initiatives, but it's pretty weak and I don't think any of it could be considered SIGCOV [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. I don't think he comes close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. MCE89 (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCoffee Club

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

Fails WP:GNG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 03:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 03:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find anything for notability. There are a lot of trivial mentions to local clubs. The best sources with significant coverage I could find include: Local news source where the reporter has a conflict of interest (went to a meeting about a startup funded by her organization). Masters thesis, not reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. readwrite.com article, a website that appears to have little to no editorial oversight. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wilkinson (footballer, born 1995)

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

Fails GNG. Extremely short pro career. Article has. routine or primary sources. Yorkshire Live has an article which might be okay but alone doesn't establish notability. Beware that he has a famous comedian namesake who does a football podcast. Canary757 (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Canary757 (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2015–16 Huddersfield Town A.F.C. season which is his sole claim to fame. Giant Snowman 20:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above and no SIGCOV that I could find. CNC (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GiantSnowman. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2015–16 Huddersfield Town A.F.C. season: per GiantSnowman. CNC (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naftali Schiff

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article reads a lot like a CV. The piece "Rabbi Naftali Schiff: Aish UK's wonderwall" by The Jewish Chronicle might be one source that counts towards notability, but other than that, I haven't been able to find much. Mooonswimmer 15:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Thanks for the nomination -- I had thought about AfDing this article when originally creating Josef Lewkowicz. Most of the sources currently in the article are poor, and it needs a WP:TNT. But there are multiple, in-depth profiles in the Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News over the years [28], [29], [30], multiple=page coverage in a book [31], with additional coverage of Schiff role in his charities [32], [33], [34], that could suffice for notability. Longhornsg (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a professional at work. Misses the bar of the GNG. gidonb (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Batchelor

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

Contested draftification of an article on a non-notable actor. There is no reliable source for the WP:OR claim that she was the oldest-ever actor who had appeared in Doctor Who (not that that is even a claim to notability). The source for this claim appears to be a Doctor Who wiki. She fails WP:NACTOR as her handful of roles appear to be minor parts, and they are sourced to IMDb, an unreliable source. She fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO for lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources. There are a couple of articles in a hyper-local village newsletter ([35], [36]), another WP:SPS ([37]), and a self-published as-told-to quasi-autobiography. As for WP:ANYBIO #1, I looked into her Fellowship in the Royal Society of Arts, but it's not a rare honor (there are 31,000 active Fellows) and can be acquired by online application and payment of a fee. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: Hello. I understand. However, what I do not understand is how some articles such as this one are accepted but not others. This seems like discrimination. There are people as notable as Peggy Batchelor or less notable than her who have pages. Please explain. Spectritus (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not discrimination in any way. It's about independent, secondary, reliable sources. IMDB isn't a reliable source. Wendover News is not likely an independent source. Peggy Batchelor's as-told-to, self-published autobiography is not a reliable, independent, or secondary sources. Pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't make Batchelor any more notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: Doesn't the fact someone wrote a book about her make her notable enough? Also, may I ask how users are supposed to find sources if Wikipedia condemns almost all of them?

The author wrote a book "as told to" her, which means it's basically Peggy Batchelor talking about herself, and thus not independent. And the biography was published by AuthorHouse, which is a vanity press and thus it's a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source and not reliable. English Wikipedia does not condemn almost all sources; it has specific standards, and the ones you used in this article don't meet them. If you have questions about individual sources or sourcing more generally, please visit WP:RSN. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero coverage found for this individual, acting roles are minor, would not pass notability for actors. A voice role in Doctor Who isn't the stuff of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was featured in only 1-2 episodes of each TV show she was in and played relatively minor roles in films. The article itself seems to be fixated on the (likely original research) trivia of her having once been the oldest person who had been a cast member of Doctor Who, which as we discussed in this AfD, isn't particularly relevant or notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note I agree this would be better in draft space. She also had a stage career, which has not been included in the article yet. I am sourcing and adding references and information, and will then consider whether she meets notability guidelines. If she is, the article needs editing, as it reads more like a eulogy than an encyclopaedic entry. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having found and added sources, I think that she does meet WP:BASIC. There are multiple, independent sources, some substantial, some less so, but they add up. There is coverage across her life in both national newspapers and local papers around the UK (around England, and also Northern Ireland and Scotland). The article could still use some work - I'll work on the lede and info box. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I cannot view the many British Newspaper Archive links you added since I don't subscribe and it's not available through the Wikipedia Library. However, I looked at a few of the other links you added and they don't seem to add up:
- A mention of her name in a radio programme cast
- A single mention in a local newspaper's stage play review: Outstanding performer in a capable cast was Peggy Batchelor who admirably sustained her role of a fussy specimen of nice womanhood with mothering tendencies towards the male Godfrey Bond turned in a splendid piece of characterisation of tne class beloved to English comedy writers the butler who is incapable of being surprised and is always adequate to meet all emergencies
- A user-generated source on the history of a local theater club
- A single reference in a local news story
None of these adds up to WP:SIGCOV. Can you better characterize the British Newspaper Archive sources so editors can properly evaluate them? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Burke (footballer, born 1994)

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

Fails GNG with 1 database source. No notable pro career. Canary757 (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Canary757 (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:SPORTCRIT / WP:FOOTYN). No notable professional career. Statistics available online fail to provide a consensus ([38] and [39]). No WP:RS and WP:IS for WP:V. QEnigma talk 14:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Among all the James Burke's out there, I found an Irish footballer manager, but nothing for the English footballer. CNC (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Corina

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Easily fails WP:MUSICBIO and now a target of a promotional farm. Even this older version I reverted to might fall into the WP:PROMO category. Jalen Barks (Woof) 05:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and England. Jalen Barks (Woof) 05:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:MUSICBIO) category. Sources provided in the article fail WP:V with some of them being considered generally unreliable (WP:RSP). Articles available online are mostly user generated content that do not meet WP:RS and WP:IS criteria. QEnigma talk 13:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Mekons per WP:BANDMEMBER. As it stands, there is insufficient to warrant individual notability. On current evidence, and in searches, most mentions of Corina in RS appears to be in context of the Mekons band, therefore this should be considered as an WP:ATD. If further coverage surfaces in due course, then the article can be easily resuscitated. ResonantDis_tortion 12:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LoyaltyLion

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

DELETE — Fails WP notability guidelines for organisations and companies WP:NCORP. The sources cited don't demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Most of the references are either self-published (the company's own website) or fail to offer in-depth analysis, consisting instead of brief mentions or promotional content, such as interviews and mentions in listicles. The tone of the article also leans towards promotional, especially in sections like "Platform Features" and "Partnerships and Integrations" WP:NPOV. There is a lack of information demonstrating the company's impact or actual significance beyond its promotional claims WP:NOTPROMO. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 02:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 02:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about an e-comm tool platform / company (created fully-formed on a new account's 11th edit). Fails WP:NCORP. The given sources are poor (though I can't see the paywalled article about Astrid & Miyu's use of the tool with Shopify), insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH and searches are not finding better to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Barker

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

This has existed for 18 years without a single source which is actually about the actor, and I can't find any sources that are actually about her, as opposed to her being mentioned in articles about her father. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~OK to delete (and recommend deletion rather than redirect, as there are other people with the same name who may be more notable).~~ There actually are more negative reviews of the play her father wrote for her, like "Daddy's girl could do without his help" in The Financial Times. But these are arguably not really about her (the FT review says things like "on this terrain it is hard to judge how good an actress she is"), and otherwise she is mentioned in passing in her father's obituaries and articles about her fugitive brother facing child porn charges. Does not meet WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no major roles, nor even supporting roles. Very minor roles in one well-reviewed film and a few guest spots on TV. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article says "As an actress she worked mostly in theatre", but gives no details, apart from the play Mum. It's not hard to find reviews of her stage work in digitised newspapers - I will add info and references and then consider whether she meets WP:BIO or WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's kinder to delete. But I will bite and expand the article and let everyone else decide. (Perhaps there are 5k pageviews in the last month for a reason.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malachi Sharpe

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was previously deleted and since then there doesn't appear to be anymore significant coverage for GNG. CNC (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and England. CNC (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. But being from United's youth sectors and called up by the Scotland national team, he tends to establish WP:GNG soon. Svartner (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Playing for the U21 team would require lots of coverage, there just isn't enough here. Sources 4 and 5 sound like SEO sites, the rest appear to be blogs or primary sources. I don't find articles about this individual either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,

I understand that the article about Malachi Sharpe may currently lack sufficient coverage to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards. Before the page is potentially deleted, I wanted to kindly ask if you might have any suggestions or tips on how it could be improved or expanded to better meet those criteria.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. I appreciate any guidance you can provide.

Kind regards, Editor 11927 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not elaborating in nomination with relevant links. Please see WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT (in particular WP:SPORTBASIC) for establishing notability for the subject. The problem is generally a lack of independent significant coverage from secondary sources, noting that United In Focus would come under fan-site and therefore fails to contribute to this. CNC (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor Is United In Focus a simple fan-site though? Even if it focuses solely on United, this looks to be alot more than just a simple fan blog. It has a rather detailed editorial Policy and significant number of experienced journalists working for them. Alvaldi (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's subjective, I agree with editorial oversight it's beyond a traditional fan site. At the same time it's nothing more than a website for fans, and also lacks the ability to be truly independent from subject. CNC (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, sport websites publish articles that appeal to the audience that they are targeting. Football sites appeal to the average football fan. This site seems to just narrow it down to the average Manchester United football fan. If the site is not run by the player/club/league etc. then it is independent from the subject. Alvaldi (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd categorise FC fan sites differently than football-specific sites like Goal.com or OneFootball (when not sync feed). It's not a coincidence that United In Focus is United specific, instead it's intentional. That said, given it's owned by GTV Media Group, it could well be considered independent in this case. CNC (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with sites that are team specific rather than league or football specific as long as they are professionaly run with editorial oversight. I would also think it would open up a pandora's box to reject such sites because with the same argument someone could state that Goal.com is not independent of football related subjects because it only covers football specific stories. All that said, I'm not arguing that the subject is notable, just that significant articles from United in Focus should go towards WP:GNG. Sharpe would still need significant articles from other publications over some extended period of time. Alvaldi (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply and the helpful info! I’ll look into finding more reliable sources to improve the notability of the page. Appreciate your help!

- Editor 11927 (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject doesn't appear to have the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited from his cousin. May just be a bit WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Subject has already gained significant coverage in United in Focus which I have argued above is a professionaly run site with editorial oversight and is independent of the subject. He does however lack significant coverage from other publications so draftifying seems to be the best course of action considering he likely will gain such coverage in the near future. Alvaldi (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per WP:TOOSOON. I'm not in favor of deleting because he's gotten some coverage from blogs. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Myles Bright

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

Non notable, fails GNG, routine and database references only. Minimal pro career. Canary757 (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Canary757 (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable sixth tier player, similar to rest of squad. Former professional footballer, now semi-professional. Only found this coverage from three years ago, which is a long way away from satisfying WP:SIGCOV. CNC (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found passing mention and routine coverage, but nothing significant per WP:GNG. CNC (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Louks

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Seems like a WP:BLP1E candidate - "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", the individual does not meet WP:NACADEMIC and as such seems to be otherwise low-profile, and going viral on social media is not per se a substantial event. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Literature, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see that this article borders on WP:BLP1E and WP:TOOSOON (this only started one month ago). But the coverage is from a large variety of sources, and they aren't just paraphrased carbon copies of one article. Multiple articles discuss her at length as the subject of the article, not just a passing mention of "Hey, this person did something newsworthy, thanks for the click." The article is well sourced and is as WP:NPOV as can be when discussing a divisive topic. Angryapathy (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Echoing Angryapathy, there is a large variety of reputable sources (some not even referenced in the Wikipedia article). She even has a fair amount of International coverage; a quick google search shows her being mentioned in Newspapers from Ireland, India, the United States, The U.K., and more. This wasn't the kind of virality that's just a tiktok video of someone saying something salacious that gets big and then dies down - she went viral because of her body of work and research, which has now spun off new discussions and even more coverage of Dr. Louks outside of the initial moment, and into far more mainstream and traditional media sources than one would expect for something that is a mere viral moment. Additionally, I don't believe Dr. Louks will be otherwise low-profile because she's gained over 120,000 followers on twitter, and has already had other tweets about her research and opinions (not directly related to the original viral tweet) go viral in their own right; I think we're just at the beginning of her notability, not that it's already over. I can understand the idea that we may be bordering on 'too soon,' but I think there is enough substantial coverage talking about her as a person and a researcher, not just one moment, to justify keeping the article. InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: per Special:Diff/1265752204, the article creator accidentally commented this from her boyfriend's account. Assuming good faith and noting for the record. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey @Darth Stabro, I've been staying out of this discussion because of the mistake you noted above. I don't want anything to get any more confusing, or to get in anymore accidental wikipedia trouble. Also, I know I'm reasonably new to wikipedia with really not that many edits. (I clearly may have bitten off more than I can chew signing up purely to be like 'I'm going to get more women on wikipedia!' not understanding all the work that entails, and all the nuances and details of wikipedia articles, which is why I, at least currently, don't plan to be getting in super deep or doing a ton more edits - but that's kind of irrelevant to this particular discussion, so, anyway...)

All that being said, I have been reading some of these links people have been leaving with wikipedia policies... and I'm wondering if this discussion ends up in delete (which I can't totally tell right now if it will or not), but if it does, is there a world in which - since people seem to keep discussing whether this is about an event or about Dr. Ally Louks herself - is there a world in which instead of deleting, this could become an article about this event i.e. 'the backlash of Ally Louks PhD graduation' or like, I dunno, whatever title made the most sense?

It seems everyone agrees there was tons of coverage in mainstream, reputable sources. And in Notability - events, it says "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources." This was covered in numerous articles across many countries in plenty of diverse sources. As far as I can tell, those wikipedia rules also seems to argue events coverage is more notable with "thematic connection or contextual information" and I think many of these sources have themes and contextual information - whether it's positioning this within a larger conversation about sexism in academia, or whether it's bringing in elements of Dr. Louks' thesis itself with talk about olfactory ethics and what that means.

I know that not every event that gets coverage gets a page. I also recognize I may not fully be understanding the rules and therefore perhaps unable to apply them correctly. But I'm just trying to make sense of all the points of view and see if that's a possible compromise for the group? (Unless the consensus ends up being keep, at which point, you can ignore this idea/question, because I really don't want to make anything more complicated than it need be). MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear WP:BLP1E issues. Arguments that there are "a large variety of sources" or "international coverage" do not counteract the demands of WP:BLP1E. To quote from that policy:
- Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - true, all independent sources in the article are only about her going viral.
- The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. - true, the article subject has given a few interviews to news outlets about her viral post, but otherwise remains WP:LOWPROFILE. This Washington Post article makes it clear that she does not seek media attention: Ally Louks could be considered the antithesis of “extremely online.” The low-key literature scholar is generally more focused on her research and supervising undergrads at Cambridge University than on growing her once-small social media following or posting on X more than a few times a year.
- The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - true, going viral on social media may be a significant event in a person's life, but not significant for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Astaire (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:SUSTAINED coverage, nor BLP1E. JoelleJay (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not as of today have the sustained coverage over a lengthy period of time to meet the WP:GNG, and as of now is a WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards keep and disagree with the argument that she is unlikely to continue being in the public eye. Academics typically increase their notability over the course of their career through publications etc, even if they're fairly low profile, which I'd argue the subject is not at this point given her continued vitality beyond the initial moment. At most, it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. – Starklinson 10:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- EDIT: Let me re-word as my point is being misunderstood – an earlier post mentioned WP:LOWPROFILE, my point was that even notable academics are often not very high profile, despite this one being unusually high profile for her position as a result of her thesis' vitality. Starklinson (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What "continued vitality"? All the coverage is from a <1-month period, that's nowhere near the requirement for WP:SUSTAINED. She's also explicitly stated she wishes to be low-profile, that's exactly what BLP1E covers. And we don't even have any evidence that she's staying in academia at this point—simply defending a thesis doesn't mean she will continue to do research or that that research will be impactful. JoelleJay (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:CRYSTAL reasoning and there are no sources demonstrating the subject has "continued vitality" beyond her initial viral post. While academics usually become more notable over time, most academics are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article and there is no indication she meets any of the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. Astaire (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When the Washington Post, the Economist, the BBC, the Independent, and even Forbes are writing about or interviewing you about your thesis I’d say you’re a pretty notable academic at that point. Trillfendi (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, in the context of WP:BLP1E the number of sources does not matter as they are all covering her for a single event; that is mostly what is at debate here. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I’m saying is, they’ve determined that she is notable in the WP:NACADEMIC realm. I didn’t say the number of sources contributed to it. Trillfendi (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the 8 criteria listed at WP:NACADEMIC does she meet? Astaire (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How have they determined she is notable as an academic....? They are interviewing her strictly because her thesis went mildly viral, which definitely does not meet the standards for NPROF C7. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:BLP1E is not applicable here anymore because she is no longer WP:LOWPROFILE given the number of high-profile interviews already given. Her case is very similar to Rachael Gunn. Contributor892z (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, actually, I think this is a great point. I agree in the similarity to Rachael Gunn. I also agree with the comments about the breadth of coverage and Ally Louks' general level of notability at this point. After reading through these comments, I have been convinced with the keep side.

Additionally, while I know random tweets can't be included in an article and don't fully make an argument, I searched tweets about her and numerous people are talking about the idea of how her work has opened up a whole new framework for people, and it's added talk of smell into the discourse in a way that people seem to feel hasn't really been done before. With such strong public opinion, it's hard to imagine this is a flash in the pan type of thing that won't continue to get coverage on some level at certain points?

I also think, to the person who said Ally Louks wants to be low-profile, her actions don't seem to state wanting to shy away completely from the media, public etc. She has a lively twitter presence for over 100,000 followers and consistently comments on many things where media and smell interact. Yeah, maybe she's not going to live directly in the public eye, or give out a lot of personal information, but I think she is still engaging with the public re: her work in a way that does not detract from her (publicly) notability, especially as an academic who wouldn't really be expected to do much in the public eye except engage with the public re: their work.

Lastly, Ally Louks recently put out a tweet begging people to stop requesting her thesis from her university because she's getting hundreds of emails a day about it. Again, I know we can't rely on social media, but if someone's thesis is being requested that much... she seems like a notable academic to me. (And I know 'notable' doesn't just mean popular, and to wikipedia standards it's more about coverage in secondary sources, but I think she crosses that bar, as she does have the mainstream coverage to back up notability, as far as I can tell.) Wikipedian339 (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be deeply misunderstanding what "low-profile" means for BLP1E... All of those arguments are exactly why we do not evaluate notability based on "popularity" in unreliable sources and absolutely do not gauge whether someone is low-profile based on their Twitter followers. WP:SUSTAINED requires sustained coverage for all topics anyway, and this burst of activity does not qualify. JoelleJay (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On WP:LOWPROFILE, it says a high profile individual "Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator." As we've seen from the links in the Ally Louks article and the links Contributor892z's listed (and other links online), Ally Louks has actively given interviews where I think we could argue she has been a "notable commentator" because she hasn't just talked about the event. She has mentioned areas of her thesis, what it's about, and what she hopes people take away from it. She also has talked about larger issues of sexism in academia, sharing a threat she received that she went to the police about.

Additionally, in the promotional activities section of WP:LOWPROFILE, it says a high-profile individual "and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause." I would personally argue that having a twitter account where she tweets (publicly to an audience of over 100,000) a number of tweets making jokes, making valid points, or sometimes even sometimes 'dunking on people', - tweets that nearly all center on smell and her thesis topic of "olfactory ethics" - tweets that she knows keep going viral and getting quote tweeted, all in light of the fact that she's already gone viral off a tweet, so she clearly is aware that's a possibility, especially in the strong opinions she shares, I would think an argument could be made that she does do 'attention seeking behavior' for her 'cause', especially because she's stated "I would like to reach a wider, non-academic audience with my work" in this article. So, it seems to me she is clearly actively seeking a wider audience.

Do I think either of those arguments of being high-profile are an absolute slam dunk? No. But do I think they're potentially reasonable and something a reasonable person could argue? Yes. I also don't think there are any absolutely slam-dunk arguments that she's low-profile, given the information above.

Even within the "sustained" section I see on WP: N, it says "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." May not (emphasis mine) That phrasing leads me to believe that it may, based on the situation. (And Contributor892z's point about Rachael Gunn still seems valid to me.)

Lastly, WP:BLP1E says "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" (again, emphasis mine). But point 2 on that list says the subject remains a low-profile individual and I've already argued why I don't think that's true. And point 3 says the event was not significant or the individual's role in the event was not significant. Clearly, Ally Louks' role was significant in the event, as the event revolved around her and her work. And I would argue 'the event,' aka the virality around her thesis, was also significant in that there was TONS of coverage, some fairly in depth, and it has ignited international conversation. For instance, this article (same as liked above) says she's "instigating a global conversation about the value of the PhD and the humanities – as well as a “male loneliness crisis.” (This is only one of many conversations started, as the term "olfactory ethics" had an extremely sharp increase the day her thesis went viral (from 0 to 100 on google's chart). So, she's getting people to talk about smell in a new way.) Wikipedian339 (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not "high-profile" or "low-profile", people are. And WP:BLP1E already addresses this: Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. In other words, giving interviews about the single event for which she is notable does not count toward her status as low-profile or high-profile. Per WP:LOWPROFILE, she would be considered more high-profile if - for example - she gave interviews to media outlets about other topics unrelated to her social media post, where she weighed in as a "politics of smell" expert. Astaire (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Astaire and that’s exactly what she is doing here and here (scroll all the way down). And both outlets are reliable sources. Refer to the note about WP:THECONVERSATION (The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts). Contributor892z (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those links involve her explaining her thesis in the context of going viral, and not providing commentary on other events as a subject matter expert, as I said above. Astaire (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC has literally nothing indicating her interview was about anything other than going viral; in fact, it doesn't even have enough secondary independent content to qualify toward GNG. And her article in The Conversation has literally no relevance to notability—giving interviews and writing articles are utterly routine in academia and do not establish someone is high-profile. JoelleJay (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether BLP1E is met, the subject still must meet WP:SUSTAINED, which she emphatically does not. JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a clear cut definition of sustained coverage? Jim Redmond is an extreme case (from the event in 1992 until his death in 2022, coverage for a single event continued). Do we have an example of what is the shortest acceptable coverage length for it to be deemed sustained? Contributor892z (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As others have noted, her notoriety has surpassed the original incident and therefore does not meet WP:BLP1E criteria. On twitter she is frequently mentioned as the de facto expert on the interaction of smell and media. Mad Mismagius (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How has her notoriety surpassed the original incident? Every single article is related to it. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned on Twitter a lot does not prove notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still on team keep [I won't bold it since I've already gotten to do that once] for the time being.

I don't mean to overpower this convo at all. I know I'm a bit loquacious and passionate (and if you feel it is a violation to say similar things more concisely in a less buried spot, feel free to delete. I want to follow the rules of civility/wikipedia, but also don't want my arguments to be lost above, or be too hard to navigate through because of me not being concise enough above (my bad).

So for anyone interested in a more concise re-cap of my current arguments for the re-listed discussion):

1) I think Ally Louks isn't a low-profile individual WP:LOWPROFILE under 2 different spots:

A) She's given interviews as a 'notable commentator' (mentioning what her thesis is about and what she hopes people take away from it. She also has talked about larger issues of sexism in academia while sharing a threat she received that she went to the police about.)

B) (even more so this one, I think): Promotional activities. She does do activities in an "attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause." Consistently daily tweeting, from the account that went viral in the first place, to over 100,000 followers, with nearly all her tweets expanding on "olfactory ethics" (her topic) in some way does seem like 'attention seeking behavior' for her 'cause' (of seeing smell in a specific framework and getting more people to think in/engage with that framework), especially as she's stated "I would like to reach a wider, non-academic audience with my work" in this article.

2) Within "sustained" in WP: N, it says "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." (emphasis mine) That phrasing leads me to believe that it may, based on the situation.

3) Lastly, WP:BLP1E says "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" (again, emphasis mine). And I don't think we can say that all 3 of been met. Here are 2 I question:

A) point 2 on that list says the subject remains a low-profile individual (which I argue against above).

B) Point 3 says the event was not significant. I would argue 'the event' was significant. For instance, this article (same as liked above) says she's "instigating a global conversation about the value of the PhD and the humanities – as well as a “male loneliness crisis.” (This is only one of many conversations started, as the term "olfactory ethics" had an extremely sharp increase the day her thesis went viral on google trends. So, she's getting people to talk about smell in a new way.)

Additionally, a new addition to this post that wasn't in the one I just recapped: if it matters at all, I found an article published just 2 days ago in which a paragraph about her is the jumping off point: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/premium/3272832/eric-hoffer-the-true-believer-trouble-with-academia/ So, she hasn't disappeared from the zeitgeist. (I know that mention in and of itself would not be enough to make her notable, but since people seem to be concerned she's a sort of flash in the pan... here she is being mentioned again (technically the following year after going viral ;) that's a little tongue-in-cheek since we just had New Year's, but I think hopefully the rest of my points stand :)).) Wikipedian339 (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly a violation of WP:BLP1E. Going viral on Twitter and getting coverage because of it does not make a person notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asset.tv

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Tagged for multiple issues. Imcdc Contact 03:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 03:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete created as a promotional article, this has always lacked sourcing showing sufficient notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A company whose literal existence is filming press releases for a certain field and outside the investment world, has little to no notability by design. Nate • (chatter) 00:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Whidborne

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and England. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable coverage. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has had multiple articles written about him on the daily post such as [40] and [41]. Also at Oxford Mail [42]. There is also a short article on the BBC [43]. I think this article subject is worth taking a close look at. I will look further when I have more time before casting a keep/delete vote.Canary757 (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with addition of new reference below.Canary757 (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the sources provided above, which each provide coverage about the subject, there is also [[44]], which allows for WP:NBASIC to be met. Let'srun (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere near enough non-routine IRS SIGCOV directly on Whidborne. The Leader article has barely two sentences on him individually—the rest is either general background on the pair's junior ice skating performance or in quotes—and the Daily Post announcements combined have about one sentence directly on him. The Oxford Mail article is routine coverage of, again, the pair, and additionally fails WP:YOUNGATH. The BBC press release is three sentences, with Josh Whidborne, 18, from Wheatley took the senior title being the extent of coverage of Whidborne, thus failing 3/4 GNG criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per new citations that were found by Canary757 and Let'srun, notability is established and WP:NBASIC met.Shinadamina (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above sources. I reject JoelleJay's innacurate analysis of some of the sources. The two Daily Post articles each have a few paragraphs of SIGCOV about Whidborne's doubles skating career. The fact that the majority of this coverage is about Whidborne as part of a duet and not about him individually does not invalidate it in terms of GNG elegibility. The Leader article offers a more in-depth profile which can easily count toward GNG. The Oxford Mail piece also adds sigcov but JoelleJay correctly brings up YOUNGATH concerns as this was local coverage of the subject as a minor (with the other sources I mentioned, this one is not needed to establish GNG is met). Frank Anchor 20:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zorch

AfDs for this article:

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

seems to fail gng by... a lot. according to a previous afd, they might be notable, but the complete lack of sources, inappropriate external links (why myspace?), and the fact that results have become an unusable mush of miscellaneous companies, cryptobro jargon, pizzerias, and chex quest jokes lead me to believe that a tnt is due, and there's only a chance that it will get recreated consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails all criteria on NMusician. No evidence of passing GNG either, I can't find any evidence of the existence of the band in major English or Ameican press.

Noah ^💬 23:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has already been brought to AFD in the past so it is not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah L. Turbiville

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

A person only notable for one event. And, per WP:CRIM, she is not well known, and the motivation for her crime does not appear unusual. {{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 04:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Texas. {{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 04:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•I agree that this page is not relevant and should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:4E3C:CC10:0:0:0:1F (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Sexuality and gender, England, and Belize. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an event-specific page. The event seems to pass WP:NCRIME guidelines, with in-depth coverage from reliable local and national news sources like CNN and NYT. While the person is not notable, I see no reason why the information about the event can't be kept. Jordano^5³ 07:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible targets include: History of vice in Texas, Crime in Houston, Brothel#United States, Prostitution in the United States#21st century {{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 04:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the first article listed to be the best, as it has more instances of specific events and incidents than the others. Fitting in this story would likely be easiest there. Jordano^5³ 06:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect and, if so, what the target article should be. Whatever article should have at least a mention of this article subject on it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRIM. The article states that the subject was arrested, but not what happened after that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing WP:SUSTAINED coverage for the crime itself, just a single news cycle. This article falls under BLP1E and should not be merged anywhere. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Bickell

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

Non-notable person. Although he holds a high position in a large company, there is barely anything in the media about him. Kingturtle = (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bickell has been covered by The Sunday Times and The Telegraph, both of which are notable sources considered to be reliable per community consensus. In addition, though no consensus has been reached on its general reliability, this piece from The Evening Standard could also arguably be considered this as well. In all three, he is primarily featured, not trivially mentioned. Because of that, I believe he meets the criteria for WP:NBIO. Jordano^5³ 07:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Telegraph and Evening Standard sources above are fine, Sunday Times is more of an extended interview, but we have enough for notability I think. Oaktree b (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I note that he's since retired and appears to devote his time to philanthropy. FWIW I also note that we have a LinkedIn connection in common (Brian Ellner). Bearian (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ale Conners of London

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

Fails WP:LISTN as not having received attention as a group. An individual appointment sometimes gets a mention in a different source (though most of these aren't independent), but that's about it. Fram (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to look for additional mentions and references on this subject. I look forward to receiving the results of the deletion discussion, and will of course be happy with whatever decision the group comes to. Tippylegend (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as WP:INDISCRIMINATE, there's no encyclopedic information here that isn't on the article for Ale conner. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 09:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Moody

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple articles on glenn moody northernecho and glenn moody gazettelive searches on google plus glenn moody theguardian is a strong one tooCanary757 (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
five references added to the article now from three different sources.Canary757 (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references added to article. Further coverage can be found in The Mirror (admittedly no consensus for reliability but the coverage indicates notability), Evening Gazette and a bit in the darts publication Dartn.de. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hut 33

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

Non-notable radio show; lacks any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Only refs found in Google are mere mentions or are BBC links, which is not independent of subject. Prod removal not based in policy. Wikipedical (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James_Cary_(writer)#Career -Mushy Yank. 01:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Northern Ireland

List of artists from Northern Ireland nominated for MTV Europe Music Awards

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

This seems to be a textbook case of a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation that does not warrant a stand-alone article. Similar case to List of Welsh artists nominated for MTV Europe Music Awards, List of Belgian artists nominated for MTV Europe Music Awards, List of Russian artists nominated for MTV Europe Music Awards and List of Finnish artists nominated for MTV Europe Music Awards. My arguments for deletion remain exactly the same as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Welsh artists nominated for MTV Europe Music Awards. I don't see any WP:RS taking significant notice of the phenomenon of Northern Irish artists being nominated for the MTV Europe Music Awards. The sources recently added verify that D:Ream, Therapy? and Snow Patrol have had nominations but their 'Northern Irish-ness' is not a major talking point nor are they discussed as a group. It seems to be a list for the sake of having a list. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Lists, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Scotland

Betty Henderson

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

Almost no information is provided on this actress. For a list of credits, readers can go to IMDb. Henderson had minor roles in a few movies. In one B movie, The Gorbals Story, she received third billing. She might have been the female lead alongside someone not mentioned in the top three, or perhaps the other two billed actors were the true leads. In either case, this article, in its current state, provides data and virtually no context, making it fail NOTDIR #1. Henderson seems to fail NACTOR as well. gidonb (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Scotland. gidonb (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles (not lead) in notable productions (The Gorbals Story and The 39 Steps, for example). It is a stub in its current state but stubs are meant to be improved rather than deleted. -Mushy Yank. 09:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malachi Sharpe

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was previously deleted and since then there doesn't appear to be anymore significant coverage for GNG. CNC (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and England. CNC (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. But being from United's youth sectors and called up by the Scotland national team, he tends to establish WP:GNG soon. Svartner (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Playing for the U21 team would require lots of coverage, there just isn't enough here. Sources 4 and 5 sound like SEO sites, the rest appear to be blogs or primary sources. I don't find articles about this individual either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,

I understand that the article about Malachi Sharpe may currently lack sufficient coverage to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards. Before the page is potentially deleted, I wanted to kindly ask if you might have any suggestions or tips on how it could be improved or expanded to better meet those criteria.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. I appreciate any guidance you can provide.

Kind regards, Editor 11927 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not elaborating in nomination with relevant links. Please see WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT (in particular WP:SPORTBASIC) for establishing notability for the subject. The problem is generally a lack of independent significant coverage from secondary sources, noting that United In Focus would come under fan-site and therefore fails to contribute to this. CNC (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor Is United In Focus a simple fan-site though? Even if it focuses solely on United, this looks to be alot more than just a simple fan blog. It has a rather detailed editorial Policy and significant number of experienced journalists working for them. Alvaldi (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's subjective, I agree with editorial oversight it's beyond a traditional fan site. At the same time it's nothing more than a website for fans, and also lacks the ability to be truly independent from subject. CNC (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, sport websites publish articles that appeal to the audience that they are targeting. Football sites appeal to the average football fan. This site seems to just narrow it down to the average Manchester United football fan. If the site is not run by the player/club/league etc. then it is independent from the subject. Alvaldi (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd categorise FC fan sites differently than football-specific sites like Goal.com or OneFootball (when not sync feed). It's not a coincidence that United In Focus is United specific, instead it's intentional. That said, given it's owned by GTV Media Group, it could well be considered independent in this case. CNC (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with sites that are team specific rather than league or football specific as long as they are professionaly run with editorial oversight. I would also think it would open up a pandora's box to reject such sites because with the same argument someone could state that Goal.com is not independent of football related subjects because it only covers football specific stories. All that said, I'm not arguing that the subject is notable, just that significant articles from United in Focus should go towards WP:GNG. Sharpe would still need significant articles from other publications over some extended period of time. Alvaldi (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply and the helpful info! I’ll look into finding more reliable sources to improve the notability of the page. Appreciate your help!

- Editor 11927 (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject doesn't appear to have the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited from his cousin. May just be a bit WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Subject has already gained significant coverage in United in Focus which I have argued above is a professionaly run site with editorial oversight and is independent of the subject. He does however lack significant coverage from other publications so draftifying seems to be the best course of action considering he likely will gain such coverage in the near future. Alvaldi (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per WP:TOOSOON. I'm not in favor of deleting because he's gotten some coverage from blogs. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mallzee

AfDs for this article:

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

Mallzee shut down in 2021. The article was flagged for neutrality and promotional content in August 2017, it is written mostly like a self-interested ad, and with the lack of any changes to rectify those issues or any edits to indicate the business shut down evidences minimal interest in article. At present, I feel the article doesn't provide encyclopaedic value and given the years of opportunity since the closure of the business without as much as an update indicating such, I doubt the quality of this article will improve. ~ Chip 🐺 08:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Chip 🐺 08:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it passes WP:NORG, even considering some articles, the coverage was incidental. ~ Chip 🐺 08:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Software, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

West of Scotland Schools Symphony Orchestra

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 17 years ago and no consensus. I'm not seeing any extensive coverage to meet GNG or WP:BAND. LibStar (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Scotland. LibStar (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. See below. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books link above produces false positives only. Google News link above produces single sentence mentions, or people claiming to have been part of the orchestra. Searched The Wikipedia Library, no results for WSSSO, one result for the full name, which is a single sentence mention in this article. Google Scholar produces three results, of which both the second result (download link) and the third result both only mention the orchestra twice while referencing the research done by the first result. The first result is the only SIGCOV I could find. The researchers administered an online survey to 41 WSSSO youth in 2009 containing many Likert-style questions about their experience, and three open-ended questions: "why did you decide to take part ... why do you continue to take part ... what would stop you taking part? The article is entitled "Advanced youth music ensembles: Experiences of, and reasons for, participation", so it seems to discuss the experiences of being in an ensemble, rather than being a comprehensive history of WSSSO. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - found 32 results on Newspapers.com. First result is SIGCOV, founding of the orchestra. But the rest of the results are more sketchy and WP:ROUTINE - advertisements, concert announcements and single sentence mentions (Person X is joining the orchestra / the orchestra is performing at location Y). I do not think this is enough. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD before so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

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

Wales

Jack Stevens (footballer, born 2000)

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

No indication of passing WP:GNG. All I found were transactional announcements (1) and match reports (2). JTtheOG (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Wales. JTtheOG (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a confusing search given the goalkeeper (born 1997) with the same name, who has definitely more coverage. However for the subject in question I also didn't find any sigcov. CNC (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP As jack stevens born (2000) is also a player of decent coverage amongst national league fans. MoKhan123 (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to provide evidence of in-depth coverage? JTtheOG (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. By the way, not all match reports follow the same news format. Although those are normally stories of the match as the name suggests, some of them may focus exclusively on a specific footballer and describes them in-depth. This one is such an example for the latter case, thus can be potential SIGCOV. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

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

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

United Kingdom

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

England

Others

Northern Ireland

Others

Scotland

Others

Wales

Others