Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Shortcut

WP:DELSORT/ENGLAND

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to England. 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|England|~~~~}} 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 England. 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 UK.

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

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:English Wikipedians' notice board

Scan for England related AfDs

Scan for England related Prods
Scan for England related TfDs

England

Akanimo Odon

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

Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of independent sources. All sources in the article are non-independent - places where the subject worked, conferences where he spoke, etc. Astaire (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Astaire (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Poetry, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Original Diving

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

Does not meet GNG and most of the references cited in the article are not addressing the topic directly nor in depth. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plus may better be suit under Wikivoyage Uncle Bash007 (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Free Balochistan Movement

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

Non-notable topic that relies mostly on unreliable Indian media sources. There is no need for this article especially when Hyrbyair Marri and Baloch nationalism already exist. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 09:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Pakistan, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hyrbyair Marri. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hyrbyair Marri. Yue🌙 02:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is also supported by BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN and a source from UK. Since when these sources are considered unreliable? Truth Layer 123 (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Bang Machine

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

Not notable band and possibly written by someone close to the subject. GamerPro64 06:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. GamerPro64 06:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient citations to demonstrate meeting WP:MUSICBIO, added to the article since nomination. This includes a substantial broadcast segment on national radio, critical coverage in reliable sources, and #10 in the UK Independent Singles and Albums Charts. ResonantDis_tortion 09:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, having a song at #96 UK singles chart should be enough for notability Microplastic Consumer (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Microplastic Consumer. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. per WP:MUSICBIO. ROY is WAR Talk! 16:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hussey-Regan

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

non-notable band that doesn't meet WP:NBAND. the sources here are simply announcecments from one of the member's other band's website (the Mission), and online search only reveals typical facebook groups, spotify lists, etc that doesn't suggest notable sustaining coverage. ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creen v Wright

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

Not enough sources to claim reliability. I checked online and there were not many sources. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 19:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 19:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Branwell

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

Like her two oldest daughters, this is a person of no personal notability. Of her children who became well known, the oldest was 5 when this woman died, so no question of meaningful moulding of talent or intellectual inspiration. Another, I would suggest, for redirect to the Brontë family article. Kevin McE (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the level of interest in the literary sisters is so great that their mother is also of interest. See here: her house in Penzance features in a tourist guide to Cornwall, and there's a biography published by Pen and Sword Books. PamD 09:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have now added the book as Further Reading. PamD 09:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purely inherited notability. Can be more than adequately handled in the family article. Kevin McE (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being related (WP:INHERITED) itself is not sufficient, but a subject can pass through the usual notability guidelines: significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD's sources that show clear notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Much easier to have a seperate article about subjects then have to unpick what you want from a large article that has the detail embedded in it. Keith D (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the Wright book Mother of the Brontes: The Life of Maria Branwell is plainly significant coverage and appears to be a reliable source. What other sources contribute to notability? The Hardie book Brontë territories : Cornwall and the unexplored maternal legacy, 1760-1860 is the best candidate, but I don't have access to it. The Fierro paper "A Daughter of Cornwall: The Overlooked Literary Relevance of Maria Branwell, Mother of the Brontës" is not peer-reviewed and is not a reliable source. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per PamD's points and the source PacificDepths mentions (Brontë territories : Cornwall and the unexplored maternal legacy, 1760-1860). Additionally, there is this chapter from a Cambridge University Press published book called "The Brontës in Context" which seems to focus on her, but I can't access it: The Brontës in Context chapter. That does leave multiple reliable and independent sources that means the threshold for notability probably is met and I do think overall it is just easier to have separate articles, but if anyone can access those latter two sources to confirm the extent of coverage, that would help confirm things. Greenleader(2) (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hayes (radio presenter)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable radio presenter. Does not meet WP:NJOURNALIST and all the sources are primary and/or not independent (programme listings, and scheduling announcements, or the press release that he had joined the station. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, no valid secondary sourcing to prove notability, as mentioned by the nominator. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shakira Khan

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

I redirected this to Love Island (2015 TV series) series 12, but was reverted. WP:BLP1E, not known outside the context of this reality series, not a subject of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Fram (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Khan has received WP:SIGCOV and meets WP:BASIC. – Meena • 15:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources about the event and Khan are primary sources, not the more distant secondary sources as required by WP:BASIC. Sources like this one are just dreadful tabloid fodder, with delicious phrases like "Shakira is from Burnley however she hasn't managed to find her ideal boyfriend yet". or "What is Shakira's job? The TV favourite works in marketing and has firm criteria when it comes to finding her ideal man." The other sources aren't really much better... Fram (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Meena XxLuckyCxX (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it meets WP:BASIC – even if the sources aren't high quality, they still show GNG. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why we have WP:REALITYBIO for singers and musicians, but not for other similar realitytv bios like this one. The same reasoning seems to apply. Fram (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Love Island (2015 TV series) series 12: Per nom, this is WP:BLP1E and it's too soon for there to be evidence of sustained coverage of Khan. Looking at the existing sources, the Burnley Express article is about a debating contest her school took part in, and just mentions her name as one of the team - not significant coverage. The Lancashire Telegraph is a list of comments made online about her - not a reliable source - and a comment from Ofcomm which is really about the programme, not Khan. The Cosmopolitan source just recaps the programme and adds information from Khan's social media. Looking at WP:BASIC, I don't think the sources are "intellectually independent" of each other, as they mainly use information from the programme. Tacyarg (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan McGovern (historian)

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

As has already been highlighted on the Talk:Jonathan McGovern (historian) page, there are grounds to believe that the article may be in violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest, Wikipedia:Notability, and possibly Wikipedia:Autobiography. Since the initial proposal, efforts were made by a newly-created account, with a name strikingly thematically-linked to the research of the author: Advancedlordship, to remove the proposal for deletion on the main page, possibly furthering evidence for Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest violations outlined on the Talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockley25 (talk • contribs)

It is further worth adding that the distinction cited by Advancedlordship as fulfilling the requirements for WP:ACADEMIC, Fellowship of the Royal Historical Society (namely, publication of an original work of historical scholarship, generally a monograph, and proposal for election by another fellow) is attainable, and has been attained, by thousands of historians including many at an early career stage (see: https://files.royalhistsoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/24161506/List-of-Fellows_July-2025.pdf and https://royalhistsoc.org/membership/fellows/, and thus questionable as a sole criterion for fulfilling the requirement that a subject be a member of a "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockley25 (talk • contribs)

No evidence has been given that McGovern's sole authored popular work is "widely popular" in terms of readership as required by WP:ACADEMIC.

The prestige of the three awarded prizes listed in accordance with WP:ACADEMIC is not clearly established. The only that might qualify for this is the Sir John Neale Prize, which still requires establishing in terms of its level of prestige: it is awarded yearly to an early career scholar and holds a monetary value of £1000. Not an insubstantial sum, but hardly a Pulitzer or a Nobel (to give examples listed on WP:ACADEMIC). The Parliamentary History Prize is similar: monetary value of £500. Awarded annually.

The author's h-index (4) and citation counts (41) on Google Scholar are no higher than is usual for a scholar in the humanities at his career stage: https://scholar.google.es/citations?user=G-uLcakAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra.

All in all, McGovern is clearly a productive scholar with an impressive CV, but has his notability been sufficiently established relative to a good many other early career historians at his stage to merit a Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockley25 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without making any evaluaion of the merits of the article itself, I am concerned with the number of WP:SPAs involved in the dispute about whether or not the article should be retained. The article creator (Clustom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), as well as Blockley25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Advancedlordship (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (the editors in dispute about the article's retention) are all SPAs. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep: I agree that the prizes are early-career essay prizes and so not really at the level that would justify a pass of WP:PROF on the grounds of a "highly prestigious" prize. (Though to have won three is undeniably impressive, and they at least help with notability.) A Fellowship of the Royal Historical Society is prestigious, but probably not the "highly selective" called for by WP:PROF. His OUP monograph has been reviewed in good journals, but it's common to ask for multiple reviewed books to pass WP:AUTHOR at AfD. There's a good chance his two newer books will attract some reviews soon, which would make the case easier; if the article does end up being deleted, it could surely be recreated if/when one of the other books has received a few reviews. (Asides: The claim about 'new administrative history' as an invention feels a stretch [When I originally wrote this comment, the article claimed McGovern 'is one of the founders of the New Administrative History']; the line in Wright is "Jonathan McGovern has called for a ‘new administrative history’ to respond to these developments and persuasively articulated the significance of institutional studies to political history. This article supports this call, yet it also qualifies McGovern's statement." I think we'd need a bit more. And the article in The Times isn't primarily about McGovern or his research, as far as I can see.) So none of this quite passes any of our guidelines alone; but combined, I think, there's a fairly compelling case. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Draftify? There are five academic reviews of his 2022 book, which at this point would pass WP:NBOOKS. His second book seems to have landed without making an impact anywhere. He has another academic book coming out in December, which will probably get enough reviews for him to pass WP:AUTHOR, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jahaza (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There’s no need to draftity an about a subject who clearly pass WP:NAUTHOR, apart from the review of their works being part of NAUTHOR, there’s also a part of WP:NACADEMIC that mentions a subject’s work being reviewed by others as an indication of their impact = notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I think our general practice has been that when someone is the creator of only one notable work, we merge the information about them into the article about the work, rather than creating separate work and creator articles. But it does seem that WP:NAUTHOR as it currently stands (read strictly, rather than based on past practice), does seem to allow articles based on multiple reviews of only one work. Jahaza (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nomination looks like an attack on the article, I mean, the wordings. Aside from that, I believe any draft accepted into mainspace shouldn't be screened of COI issue but not paid stuff. I accepted this article following AFC review practice and that clears the problem of COI disclosure or whatsoever. Then coming to notability, I don't see draftifying as a solution rather as a threat to Wikipedia at some instance like this one. This article clearly and efficiently meets WP:NAUTHOR, which was the criteria I used to accept this article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poplar Row

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

First source is about a house on the street, not about the street. Other sources are commercial listings of houses for sale, or a source that doesn't even mention the street[1]. The "best" sources I could find were also about the old farm, not indepth sources about the road[2]. Lacks notability. Fram (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Geography, and England. Fram (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Street doesn't not meet WP:NPLACE which specifically asks us to rely on WP:GNG. I don't see the independent reliable sources needed to establish that, not from here not from a cursory search. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find sources showing the road itself meets WP:GNG, though the properties might. SportingFlyer T·C 20:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Brontë

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

Going for walks with younger sisters is not a meaningful claim to notability. Kevin McE (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. She doesn't inherit notability just because her sisters were notable. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brontë family. There is a good deal of interest in her family because her sisters were notable novelists, but as Elizabeth died at age 10 she does not appear to be notable in her own right per WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might as well repeat my comment from the Maria Brontë AfD here. Even if it turns out that there isn't enough to say about Elizabeth herself, or that it makes more sense to discuss her short life in a larger context, redirecting makes more sense than deleting, since we have the Brontë family article right there. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brontë family#Children. The article basically says in the lead that we don't know much about the subject. She didn't live long enough to accomplish anything, and is of interest solely in the context of the family. Schazjmd (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brontë family#Children per Schazjmd above. BD2412 T 21:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, no objection to redirect. Kevin McE (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The level of interest in her sisters is such that there will be readers wanting to read this article, and it is all thoroughly sourced. She was part of the context in which the famous authors grew up. The article has substantial page views, so readers are looking for it. PamD 07:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pam's comments – Emily is notable because her family is so famous that there is reader interest in her life itself, as shown by the page views. Also, she recently had a Street named after her, as seen here [3] DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no end of streets named after minor local authority administrators: not grounds for noteability. As to page views, mine at least was looking at a notable sibling, noting that Elizabeth had an article, and wondering what she had done, i.e., link driven page views, not deliberate research of the subject. Kevin McE (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with a selective merge. Incredibly sad. She caught measles, which was not known at the time could wreck a child's immune system, succumbing to a series of infections that lead to her death from TB and/or typhus. But we know now that a simple, safe, and effective vaccine can prevent such deaths, right? Right? Bearian (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable because she was a member of the immediate family of the Brontes. There is enough material to justify a separate article, and there is a significant number of page views. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The information about her (date of birth and baptism, school records) could be found for any other child of her class at that time. There is absolutely nothing about this child, other than shared DNA, that makes her noteworthy. Page hits, as already stated, are a consequence of the existence of links, not proof of public interest in this child. Kevin McE (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brontë family, only known for having famous family members, not independently notable.--Staberinde (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bath Soft Cheese

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

Can't find the sources to prove this passes the GNG; out of the four sources ever cited in the article, [4] is a cheese hobbiest's blog, [5], [6], and [7] are commercial sites selling cheese. (Including, at various points, this one). As the subject is an individual soft cheese produced by the "The Bath Soft Cheese Co", I don't really expect to find any more sources.

Full disclose, I came across this article while doing Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Chamaemelum (author is CBANed for content & OR issues, and there's evidence they generated some of their articles with a 2023-era LLM.) As such, I did nuke a large portion of the article and I tried to rewrite it, but given the lack of RSs, I don't think I can salvage it. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 00:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and England. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 00:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Editor Chamaemelum has been "Community indefinite banned" for disruptive editing. — Maile (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG per WP:BEFORE. Patre23 (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - according to this article it won an award. I think it's the same thing but maybe not.. JMWt (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt Same cheese company, but this award was given to their "Wyfe of Bath" cheese, not "Bath Soft Cheese". :/ Thanks for finding it though, it might be useful if somebody wants to write an article about the cheese company itself. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 23:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford-Keighley Youth Parliament

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

Not notable Landpin (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Landpin (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Little Atoms

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

Tagged for notability since 2022. The sources on the page seem to be passing mentions with little substantive coverage. I have found another longer ref 1 but am not sure that this is considered a RS. JMWt (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The_Skeptic_(British_magazine)#Podcast. I'm not seeing enough sources to satisfy WP:N. TipsyElephant (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When Brummies Met Sindhis

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. Nothing to support notability found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Pakistan, United Kingdom, and England. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Software

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Previous AfD was pretty flimsy and doesn't seem to have demonstrated there were sufficient sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and England. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that it fails WP:NCORP and also fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beyond was a very important developer of games. Lords of Midnight in particular. It needs improvement, but to delete is simply to deny knowledge. MrMarmite (talk)
- So where's the part where they pass WP:NCORP or, more importantly, WP:GNG? The claim that deleting this article is the denial of knowledge also makes no sense. They'd still be mentioned on the pages for the games they made... λ NegativeMP1 00:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG, and NCORP as well seemingly, but failing GNG is a more significant issue. λ NegativeMP1 00:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Srinivas Gada

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

Only 1 article links to this. 4 of the 5 sources are articles written by him. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, India, and England. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR criteria - wrote a book, but I found no reviews of it. Qflib (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, didn't pass GNG. Behappyyar (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Valhalla and the Lord of Infinity. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vulcan Software

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

Disputed PROD, I do not believe this company passes WP:NCORP with a significant lack of coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and England. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, my own WP:BEFORE did not yield positive result for this article. The available sources are not WP:RS because they are press releases and announcements. Patre23 (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- to Valhalla and the Lord of Infinity if the subject itself lacks SIGCOV citations to support it.Lorraine Crane (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redir per above. My quick WP:BEFORE didn't find much. There's several targets, but that one seems OK. Widefox; talk 18:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- to Valhalla and the Lord of Infinity as per ATD, the topic sources for the company are scarce and none meet NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Valhalla and the Lord of Infinity: Per the above. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

2024 World Junior Ultimate Championships

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

No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.

Draftified a week ago for the same reason; sources added prior to move back to mainspace were two connected with participants ([8] [9]) and one from the tournament organiser. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Sports, and United Kingdom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've add more reference sources. Did you think that it's enough? Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep The article needs a lot of work, but I think the sources are there. We have articles about a specific player(s) at the tourney [10] [11]. We have an article about the tournament [12] and about how to watch it (complete with the entire schedule) [13]. All of those sources are independent of the organizer (WFDF) or specific teams. I know sports articles often have a higher bar in practice than just the GNG, but the GNG seems to be pretty easily met, so I'm at keep. Hobit (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems fairly notable, the article is just poorly written and should be improved. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 17:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deja Vu (group)

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

Wikipedia article seems to be cobbled together from social media sources and brief mentions in news articles about The Voice UK series 12. I can't find any independent news sources specifically about the group, apart from the hungermag.com article already cited. Neither do they seem to have had any notable success outside of their appearance on The Voice. I'd say "delete" for now. Sionk (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whilst they are not the main subject of the Digital Spy article, I'd say that that counts towards SIGCOV in addition to this source ([14]) and the Hunger mag, as it shows that they are notable. If it not kept I would recommend merging and redirecting to The Voice UK series 12 to preserve the history and allow the page to be recreated in the future. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are very brief mentions in relation to their appearance in The Voice UK series 12. Though I'd have nothing against them getting an 'honourable mention' in the The Voice UK series 12 article, considering they were the first group to perform in The Voice (and the first act to appear in that year's series). Sionk (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As DaniloDaysOfOurLives, I'd argue there's SIGCOV of the group, especially with that Hunger interview. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have received SIGCOV, as well as their song "Hot" spending numerous consecutive weeks at #1 on Future Hits Radio (still charting), as well as their other single "Hell Yeah" currently charting on it. Whilst an independent radio station, it shows public knowledge and interest of the group. – Meena • 22:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence of this? Sionk (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's their most recent chart. Their website and socials cover ones from previous weeks/months where their #1 placements were held. – Meena • 13:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of doubt it's an authoritative national radio station (or chart) if it invites submissions, then only advertises its results on Facebook. Sionk (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Gates Shopping Centre

AfDs for this article:

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

Insufficient secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Information about The Riverwalk can not be used for notability reasons, as it's an entirely separate complex, with separate owners and developers - the only similarity being the location. Irrespective of this, most of The Riverwalk sources are either primary or Promotional. It is also worth noting that without the information about The Riverwalk the whole article would be a single sentence which makes it sound nothing more than run of the mill. GeekBurst (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and England. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Razorworks

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

Deproded claiming sufficient sources were found to pass WP:NCORP. I dispute that claim and believe the company still fails notability criteria, with the sources found being trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and England. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rebellion Developments. I could see a case being made for this article to be kept, but I think it would serve the greater good if the information from this article was moved into Rebellion's article, since they were the last owner of the studio before it was shut down. I don't think anyone is going to find any significant coverage to pass WP:NCORP given how short of a time the company was actually independent. Meepmeepyeet (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Empire Interactive. They didn't develop any games for Rebellion, all of their games were published by Empire so it's the more appropriate target. --Mika1h (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any thoughts behind Merge and Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani cricket team in England in 2026

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

Doesn't start for over a year. Sooo obviously too soon. England have two Test series before this one starts. Retarget to 2025–2027 World Test Championship #England v Pakistan where this is mentioned at target per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Sports, Cricket, Pakistan, England, and Wales. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other series already are redirects and all the coverage is basically about the announcement. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be delete or redirect. The series is a part WTC 2025-27 Cycle. Keep it as per evidence and sources as enough. England have announced FTP for 2026, and these series is Test (longest format) and it comes under ICC event as mentioned in FTP of ICC. Keep it. Thank you. Goodknowme (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:SNOW. This article should neither be deleted nor redirected. Significant coverage is available in reliable and independent sources, which have already been cited in the article, in addition to official media releases. This series forms part of the ICC Future Tours Programme and the 2025–2027 World Test Championship. As the name itself suggests, it is an upcoming cricket tour that has been planned well in advance. QEnigma (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: the schedule is confirmed, it's part of the ongoing WTC cycle. Don't see any reasons to delete. Vestrian24Bio 12:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have a lot of articles for future sports events that have been scheduled. The references support this. Per WP:TOOSOON, this passes verifiability. Knitsey (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the currently known information is that the tour is scheduled, and the dates. This is all covered in the article 2025–2027 World Test Championship #Crowe–Thorpe Trophy (England v New Zealand), and there is no other pertinent information about this series at this time. Thus, a separate article is not warranted until there is significant information about the series more than just fixture dates. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I truly think Joseph has truly put out a great rationale, and I think they were words I was looking for in mine. Seeing if anyone agrees with this rationale. Tagging to see what people think. @Goodknowme @Knitsey @QEnigma @Vestrian24Bio. Changing vote/argument is not compulsory, but I do think this is a great rationale, and one that should be at least looked at. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Joseph's rationale. Vestrian24Bio 07:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vestrian24Bio What I was asking is, do you want to change your vote or not. If you do, you will need to strike your original vote and do it again. The question I had was that with this rationale, maybe some might want to change their vote. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Think I will, Redirect. Vestrian24Bio 16:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments are divided between Keep and Redirect. But not a WP:SNOW situation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand cricket team in England in 2026

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

It is honestly just too soon. Doesn't start for another 10 Months. Redirect to 2025–2027 World Test Championship #Crowe–Thorpe Trophy (England v New Zealand) where this is mentioned at target per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, England, Wales, and New Zealand. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be delete or redirect. Keep it as per evidence and sources as enough. England have announced FTP for 2026, and these series is Test (longest format) and it comes under ICC event as mentioned in FTP of ICC. Keep it. Thank you. Goodknowme (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:SNOW. This article should neither be deleted nor redirected. Significant coverage is available in reliable and independent sources, which have already been cited in the article, in addition to official media releases. This series forms part of the ICC Future Tours Programme and the 2025–2027 World Test Championship. As the name itself suggests, it is an upcoming cricket tour that has been planned well in advance. QEnigma (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping per WP:SNOW makes no sense. Furthermore, if significant coverage exists the article would not just be a timetable. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the schedule is confirmed, it's part of the ongoing WTC cycle. Don't see any reasons to delete. Vestrian24Bio 12:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have a lot of articles for future sports events that have been scheduled. The references support this. Per WP:TOOSOON, this passes verifiability. Knitsey (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the currently known information is that the tour is scheduled, and the dates. This is all covered in the article 2025–2027 World Test Championship #Crowe–Thorpe Trophy (England v New Zealand), and there is no other pertinent information about this series at this time. Thus, a separate article is not warranted until there is significant information about the series more than just fixture dates. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree this feels WP:TOOSOON but there are enough sources to overcome WP:CRYSTAL so I'm comfortable this should stay. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What additional benefit does this article provide over the redirect target, which has all the known information anyway? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity it currently fails WP:NOT in being just a list of dates and cricket venues. This is something you'd find in on a sports/tv guide and not something in an encyclopaedia. The article can be moved to mainspace once actual encyclopaedic content exists. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't know how anyone can call this a WP:SNOW scenario.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004

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

Not notable. Landpin (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Environment. Landpin (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and England. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Town and country planning in the United Kingdom.--Policking (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)— Policking (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Unclethepoter (talk · contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Local development framework. Mauls (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sim Local

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

Covered mostly in WP:TRADES. This article is probably the best about them but it lacks in-depth analysis and is full of quotes like "Whelan said", "he said" or regurgitated press release information. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Ireland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is supported by multiple high-quality, independent sources. The company is notable both in terms of media coverage and industry impact, and the current article includes properly cited, verifiable information. It should not be deleted.

We removed sections that looked like advertising and performed extensive rewrites. Happy to make further improvements if needed. Thanks Dylan909 (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Bauer

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBIO; the subject has not received significant or in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources that's independent of the subject. Some1 (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Some1 (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Finance, England, Canada, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article seems to be promotional in tone and fails WP:NBIO. Need more reliable sources apart from the [executive].--Policking (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)— Policking (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Unclethepoter (talk · contribs). [reply]
Keep – Full disclosure: I created this article in March 2025. As the primary strategist behind what the SEC called one of “the most complex microcap stock fraud schemes” ever, Bauer meets notability requirements. The sources back this up.
- Investment Executive – National finance‑press report dissecting Bauer’s guilty plea and recapping his market activity. Independent, mainstream coverage demonstrating enduring public interest. This meets significant, reliable, secondary under WP:GNG.
- Law360 - Detailed legal story chronicling Bauer’s extradition fight.
- Compliance Week – Investigative compliance magazine feature that unpacks the $194 million pump‑and‑dump scheme step‑by‑step. The depth and analysis back up Bauer’s notability beyond routine reportage.
- BDO Canada (BDO Global) - One of Canada's largest accounting firms lays out details of "the Bauer Ring." This analysis from a major accounting firm shows the case's impact and discussion within the professional financial/legal community, corroborating the widespread attention noted in mainstream press.
- Stephenson Harwood briefing – International law‑firm commentary detailing the £100 million share‑ramping plea. Reliable legal insight confirming the scale and notoriety of the case.
- United States Department of Justice – Multiple official statements detailing charges, plea, and 20‑month sentence underscore the case’s gravity.
- United States Securities and Exchange Commission civil complaint & judgment – Provide a documented regulatory history that secondary outlets reference, further establishing the subject’s public footprint.

The nominator filed the AfD alongside three other pages that figured in a prior sockpuppet probe the nominator participated in; one of those pages has already been kept. While past editing misconduct is real, the AfD process is for judging article content against policy, not litigating old behavioral disputes. That principle should prevail here as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcticwindowpane (talk • contribs) 19:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources you listed are primary sources, not high quality reliable secondary sources that cover the subject in depth. Unfortunately this and the other three articles suffer from COI/UPE and sockpuppetry issues. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cora Systems, an article which you also created, an editor said The clear WP:PAID / WP:COI / WP:PROMO overtones, in the article's creation and its tone/intent, are also very very difficult to overlook. I see the same issues here with this article too, and would like to hear from uninvolved experienced editors about whether this article meets WP:NBIO or not, because I don't believe it does. Some1 (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This looks like WP:BLP1E, and the event itself is not notable. Here is a source assessment table for all citations except ComplianceWeek and Law360 (paywalled).

Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
BDO Canada		Company blog, not a reliable news source	Does not discuss subject in detail	✘ No
Investment Executive			~ Two things subject did, but not a lot of information about the subject	~ Partial
Stephenson Harwood	Repeats SEC filing	Company blog	~	✘ No
USDOJ press release	Is directly involved with subject	Not editorially independent	~	✘ No
Fox School of Business	Subject is faculty			✘ No
Durango Gold Fund SEC Form C	Primary source			✘ No
DeSmog				✘ No
Fire Nation Podcast	interview			✘ No
California Business Journal		Site does not have editor or staff page, nor journalism code of ethics		✘ 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}}.

— 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Maynard

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

Non-notable. All references are to interviews which the subject himself has promoted. No secondary sources give grounds for evaluation. Smerus (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think saying how bad things are in Gaza is enough for notability, frankly, it's evident at this point how dire the situation is. Other than speaking about how bad things are there, the one or two lines for his career are routine. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Nick Maynard points out war crimes that Israel denies, so his statements are important. Adlerauge99 (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but no - he is clearly using the Wikipedia platform to further his own agenda and there is no wider interest in his personal views. As noted elsewhere, the article is basically his CV plus his comments on one particular matter, expressed in a very partisan way. This may have support, but it's not sufficient to justify an article. 2A00:23D0:44D:6301:5D6B:9E99:52B1:FA9D (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you just said it correct. The subject is pretty clearly not the one who wrote the article. There is clear wider interest in his views (see [15]), nothing in the article is written like a CV, and there is nothing partisan about the article, and as far as I have read, nothing super partisan about his advocacy. Ike Lek (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So please provide better sourcing than what we have, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMO, the subject is close to notability; there are, for example, two articles in CNN and NPR that appear to contribute to notability. But there so far only about those sources and 2 others, so it's a little unclear whether there is widespread coverage enough to meet threshold. But I would not be surprised if there would be in the next month (but we are not a crystal ball). GuardianH 14:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not given a reason that would be sufficient to delete this article. Adlerauge99 (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed secondary sources, namely other doctors and humanitarian aid workers. For example: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/19/gaza-hospitals-surgeons-00167697 Adlerauge99 (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adlerauge99 -- feel free to put in a "!vote" for Keep by adding it in bold before this statement. (I'm not voting yet -- it seems borderline and I could be persuaded to keep, especially if the articles are from more than, say, 6 months apart to show that he has sustained a reputation as an expert, or by the argument that the news coverage is only tangentally about him.) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability relates to a single issue, needs WP:SUSTAINED. JFW | T@lk 12:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The earliest independent coverage cited in the article is from 2023. Considering he is still receiving coverage in 2025 [16][17], I think that is enough for WP:SUSTAINED. As for claims to a lack of non-interview coverage, here are some [18][19]. And just because I anticipate this response, no, it isn't non-independent just because it includes quotes. – Ike Lek (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The calls for deletion appear to be motivated by political bias in favour of Israel. This is not remotely acceptable. I trust that Wikipedia will not delete this, althouh I would agree with anyone saying it would benefit from expansion.

J.A. 92.24.165.66 (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sustained coverage of Maynard and his work in Gaza is sufficient to show notability, imv. (t · c) buidhe 19:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sustained coverage of work in Gaza, awarding of the Humanitarian Medal per WP:ANYBIO, and a healthy several thousand citation count per Scopus contributing to a claim per WP:NPROF. ResonantDis_tortion 20:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the references mentioned in the article [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] and [25]. LKBT (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC) _{Blocked for UPE. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)}[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete. Nick Maynard's profile, specifically his experience as a British surgeon in Gaza is of interest to a wide audience. Entry needs expansion and more references, including his media interviews. 2001:630:E4:4220:95A8:60F0:A64F:AE65 (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Various references mentioned above account for significant coverage. Per WP:BLP1E and WP:1E, I believe that Dr Nick Maynard should have a WP entry, though the current one is a bit lackluster. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than enough references given to satisfy WP:GNG, from a range of reliable and independent news sources. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage is already sustained and widespread. Jahaza (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion is nearly evenly divided. A source analysis would be helpful in coming to a consensus decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rushop

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

How is this a village? It's not even a hamlet as far as I can see. Rushup Edge is a geographical feature, a ridge. There's Rushop Hall, an isolated house surrounded by fields. Some distance away there's a farm called Rushup Edge Farm. There are two other farms in the area: Coldwall Farm and Hillside Farm, but these and the other buildings I have mentioned are not clustered together in a way that forms a hamlet.

NB: No settlement with this name is shown on the OS map in this place, only the individual houses and farms listed above. Dubmill (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. Dubmill (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the National Library of Scotland maps archive, OS maps did consistently label the area with Rushup Hall and Coldwall Farm (now Rushup Edge Farm) as Rushup from 1880 to 1955, even up to 1/2-inch scale; the name is gone by 1971. It doesn't look like it was ever much bigger than it is now. Adam Sampson (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. It's a recognised hamlet, and it gives its name to the adjacent Rushup Edge and the lane that runs through it. It probably won't ever be more than a stub, but what are the grounds for deletion? What notability guideline is being applied? Dave.Dunford (talk)

I'm not sure how to answer that. You say it's recognised as a hamlet, but in what way? It doesn't appear on the OS map as a settlement. It's true that it does on older maps, but not current ones. That's pretty damning isn't it? Or do you regard the OS map as unreliable? Are there other examples of places defined on Wikipedia as settlements that don't appear on the map? (I suppose I can think of some London districts that are commonly thought of as places but don't appear on the map, like Manor House, for example, but does the same apply to rural areas?) You say it gives its name to Rushup Edge, but is that true? Couldn't it be the other way around?

Having said all that, I'm open to persuasion that I haven't thought this through properly, but at the very least it should be described as a hamlet, not a village. Dubmill (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My source is local knowledge, I guess, but I was really just puzzled as to the rationale for deletion and wanted to check that there wasn't a guideline that I wasn't aware of for small settlements. It's definitely a legitimate settlement name. I agree that it shouldn't be referred to as a village (and I'll edit it to that effect). Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've expanded the article slightly. There is potentially more to say; for example, there are a couple of scheduled monuments (a ring cairn and a bowl barrow) nearby, mining remains, and also natural limestone potholes towards Perryfoot. Personally I think the article should be renamed Rushup, but that's a different debate. Alternatively, the article could be broadened to include Perryfoot (which is marked on the OS map, but doesn't have its own article). Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further update: I've had a look in the article history, and the editor who first created it was an anon IP with a checkered history, to say the least; the original article talked about the village church of St Cuthbert, which definitely doesn't exist (ironically it was me that removed this claim in 2020). I think there's still a case for an article about Perryfoot, which could include Rushup. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder incase you weren't already aware, local knowledge doesn't count for notability, or as a reference, though I understand you are just using it to justify your comments

ere Wikipedia article criteria don't applyh

GeekBurst (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge to Chapel-en-le-Frith. There are already sections in that article for Combs and Dove Holes, so it wouldn't be intrusive to add a new section for Rushup and move over what's worth keeping from here (which probably wouldn't include the uncited and speculative stuff about the pre-Roman settlement). Dave.Dunford (talk)

I'm not sure. I think the edits you've made to the existing article are good, and based on there being a small cluster of buildings in the vicinity of Rushop Hall, perhaps it just about reaches the threshold of a hamlet, despite the anomaly of it not being mentioned as one on the OS map. I had thought it was just Rushop Hall there, plus a few ancillary buildings associated with the Hall, but perhaps it's more than that. There does appear to be a farm of some sort on the other side of the lane.

I'm happy to either continue improving the existing article or merge it into Chapel-en-le-Frith, as you propose. I think I jumped the gun a bit in proposing deleting it, but I was just very surprised to see it called a village, yet see no evidence of it on the OS map. Dubmill (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading my comment to Keep based on Dave.Dunford's improvements. It was named on the OS maps for 75 years, it's still an inhabited place, and there seem to be enough sources about it to make for a reasonable article. I did wonder if it might originally have been a township, i.e. a subdivision of the large C-en-le-F parish? I'd also agree with renaming it to Rushup, since that seems to be the more common spelling. Adam Sampson (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

England

Akanimo Odon

Original Diving

Free Balochistan Movement

Bang Bang Machine

Hussey-Regan

Creen v Wright

Maria Branwell

Paul Hayes (radio presenter)

Shakira Khan

Jonathan McGovern (historian)

Poplar Row

Elizabeth Brontë

Bath Soft Cheese

Bradford-Keighley Youth Parliament

Little Atoms

When Brummies Met Sindhis

Beyond Software

Srinivas Gada

Vulcan Software

2024 World Junior Ultimate Championships

Deja Vu (group)

The Gates Shopping Centre

Razorworks

Pakistani cricket team in England in 2026

New Zealand cricket team in England in 2026

Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004

Sim Local

Ronald Bauer

Nick Maynard

Rushop

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also