Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

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

Jamie Scope

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

The highest level Scope appears to have played in the third tier of American soccer with Wilmington Hammerheads, and he appears to have made a single brief appearance. If true, Scope was at most a professional athlete for a year and does not meet WP:GNG as there does not appear to be anything else particularly notable about him. Raskuly (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, California, North Carolina, and Texas. Raskuly (talk) 04:58, 24 July 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]

Tonbridge Jubilee Sidings

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

Railway sidings? Really? Doesn't need a whole article as it fails WP:GNG. Railway sidings exist all around the country and this is just one of them; don't know why this one warrants an article. KrystalInfernus (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Redhill–Tonbridge line#Infrastructure. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (don't redirect): fails WP:GNG based on sources, ~~and the suggested redirect target doesn't mention the siding at all (and why should it, because frankly, who cares unless there is a GNG-worthy source suggesting a siding is somehow noteworthy).~~ WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WeirdNAnnoyed: The penultimate sentence of that section says To the west of Tonbridge station are the Jubilee Sidings, used to stable electric multiple units..., so I think that's a reasonable redirect target for a valid search term. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, I missed that. Striking my earlier statement. Still, I stand by my delete because this fails GNG and seems an unlikely search term to me. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Tonbridge West Yard and expand. The West Yard (which includes the Jubilee Sidings) has an 80 year history distinct from Tonbridge.

Or a merge to Tonbridge station at the very least. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Media related to Tonbridge West Yard at Wikimedia Commons

The High Society

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged as possibly non-notable for five years. Band shares various members of other notable bands, but those musicians are not independently notable (WP:BAND #6). WP:BAND#1 not met; coverage is trivial at best (or is otherwise incidental mention in relation to King Adora) MIDI (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MIDI (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment: To address the "keep" !votes of the previous AFD (back in 2007): (1) Having 2 former members of a notable band does not meet (or no longer meets) WP:BAND#6 – the musicians themselves should be independently notable (rather than inheriting the notability of the other band), (2) Neither "I've heard of them", "they're influential", nor "they gigged in London" are a threshold for keeping. (3) At the time of the previous AFD, "criterion 5" was "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". That is no longer the case. MIDI (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to King Adora#Post-breakup (2005–present). This appears to be a valid WP:ATD. ResonantDis_tortion 19:16, 23 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]

Reece James (disambiguation)

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

Per WP:2D; there is only one other main listing on this page. Replace DAB link with hatnote to born 1993 on PT page. Spike 'em (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Talk:Reece James#Requested move 14 July 2025 which specifically referenced keeping the dab page. Giant Snowman 17:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Fade258 (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The closer of the RM made no judgement on the status of the DAB, and as far as I can see, the proposer said it was a TWODAB situation and GiantSnowman said it wasn't. I see no consensus either way in that discussion (which is why I started this separate discussion). Spike 'em (talk) 14:44, 23 July 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]
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]

Max Briggs

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

Long-time stub of a former footballer without significant coverage and career information. Regarding secondary sources, I found a passing mention on Norwich Evening News, but I don't know how reliable the website is. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: cut content from article history: "He made 170 appearances for the club (scoring twice) before moving to Oxford United in 1974, where he spent the last three seasons of his career" Geschichte (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage: 1 2 3. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first was good, the third also confirms most of the cut content. Geschichte (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The third source is also a brief mention about his transfer to Oxford United. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 06:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Night (Beatles song)

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

This song isn't notable outside of its inclusion on The Beatles. All mentions of it are within context of the album such as reviews or within context of the whole band such as song rankings that gloss over it. There's nothing that actually focuses on the song that could be considered reliable by WP:RSP besides a single Rolling Stone article, which I don't think is enough to warrant an article. There's of course a huge precedence of being a Beatles song (every album's tracklist is entirely hyperlinked besides Yellow Submarine), but notability isn't inherited. CMYKBird (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Every Beatles song except "Now and Then" has received a musicological analysis by Alan W. Pollack, including "Good Night", which helps provide one of the non-trivial independently published works about them as WP:NSONG expects. The fact that this song has also been recorded by Barbra Streisand, Linda Ronstadt, and Kenny Loggins with Alison Krauss should also count toward notability ("Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups"). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just added a sourced quote from Rolling Stone magazine, indicating they were intrigued by the song.— Maile (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm sorry but this is among the more ridiculous AfDs I've seen. The MacDonald book and Everett book that are already listed in the article have significant coverage of this song. So does this book that is the first listing of a Google Book search that should have been done as part of WP:BEFORE. So does All The Songs: The Story Behind Every Beatles. The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions: The Official Story of the Abbey Road Years 1962-1970 has a lot of information about the recording of the song. And there is plenty more coverage if one bothers to look. Rlendog (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per everyone above. There is more than enough significant coverage of the song from multiple sources. The4lines |||| (talk) 06:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - same. Nominator would have better spent their time improving the article, which is always needed. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Duffus

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

No evidence that this rugby player is notable. The one source provided is no longer live, and is not recorded at the Internet Archive. I can find no evidence via Google, any of the rugby stats sites, the British Newspaper Archive, and the Irish Newspaper Archives, to suggest he has played for Saracens, Ulster or Edinburgh, or any professional rugby team, or that he's been selected for England 7s. The only teams I can find his name associated with are Chingford RFC and Romford and Gidea Park Rugby Club, which are in level 7 and 6 respectively of the English rugby pyramid and not professional. Nicknack009 (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: I've one a little more digging. The title of the newspaper article cited suggests he played for Edinburgh Academicals ("Accies"), and I've found a different newspaper article showing him playing for them in 2009. Accies are not a professional team, and not the same team as Edinburgh Rugby, who are professional. Under the old rules, he'd have been presumed notable if he'd played for Edinburgh Rugby, but that's not enough any more. His Contactout profile says he was in the Saracens academy for one season in 2006-07, but no indication he ever played for their senior team. Can't find anything connecting him to Ulster. So no sign of significant coverage of him, and the article appears to be inaccurate. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little coverage, the fact we can’t verify most of the claims given is enough for me.

RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Nicknack009 (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see anything about a rugby player, the one source in the article isn't helpful. A few hits on the name, a scientist, random hits. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William James Dawson

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

Not seeing the claim to notability. The sources on the page appear to either be written by the topic or close relatives of the topic. Notability isn't inherited, nor does being in an old encyclopedia mean that a topic is suitable for en.wiki JMWt (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Scotland, Canada, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being included in an encyclopedia is in fact excellent evidence of notability. In addition to that citation, he received an obituary in the New York Times when he died.[1] He has an entry in the Oxford Companion to Edwardian Fiction.[2] He also received an obituary in the London Times[3] Here's another NY Times article.[4] An 1899 review of one of his novels in the South Australian Register.[5] A book review in The Critic.[6] A book review in The New Republic.[7] Another book review.[8] Jahaza (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More[9][10][11] Jahaza (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think Jahaza has very definitively established multiple areas of reliable and significant coverage. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 04:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jahaza. The sources presented are more than sufficient to establish notability. MCE89 (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jahaza. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This really needs a ton of copy editing. It should have been draftified years ago, but now it's too late. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jahaza's source analysis. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sources establish notability now but it really needs a good copyedit! Coldupnorth (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Minehead school coach crash

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, United Kingdom, and England. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I don't know why people think every bus accident is appropriate but it's very unlikely that reporting on this three day old event is going to be lasting. Mangoe (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably a case where it would have been wise to WP:DELAY until the lasting significance (or likely lack thereof) becomes apparent. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and caution should be taken basing articles off recent breaking news events. Dfadden (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles final

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

To borrow from the ongoing AFD nomination for the 2025 Wimbledon Championships - Men's singles final, Tennis Project Guidelines say match articles are only created for "matches of record-setting events or matches with significant controversies." Individual major match finals are only supposed to be created when the press describes it as one of the greatest of all-time. Routine matches like this one do not have the same extra notability. This a run-of-the-mill three-set Wimbledon final. In summary this is a bog-standard Grand Slam final and this article should be deleted or redirected to 2024 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Tennis, and England. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This match is not notable and does not meet the standards to have it's own independent page. Reaper1945 (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unambiguously meets GNG, not to mention WP:SPORTSEVENT. —Rutebega (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a tennis fan, but bog-standard Grand Slam final ~~sounds like an oxymoron~~. (Keep per GNG). Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra Since you are a self-admitted non-tennis fan let me enlighten you. There are 25 Grand Slam finals every year (4 Grand Slams x men's singles, women's singles, men's doubles, women's doubles, mixed doubles), and that is not counting the wheelchair, quad, juniors, under-14s or legends invitationals finals. Therefore in the history of Grand Slam tennis tournaments there have been thousands of finals. Many, such as the one in question, have been one-sided and unremarkable or "bog-standard" otherwise known as ordinary, basic and unexceptional. No oxymoron here. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless it meets GNG, and a local consensus at a project doesn't override GNG without clear consensus, such as was achieved with WP:NSPECIES. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, just as we all are. I am only replying to your oxymoron quip. As an interesting aside, it is curious how none of the keep voters here, including yourself, participated in the AFD for the 2025 Wimbledon women's singles final article which was far more noteworthy due to the historic scoreline and had boatloads of SIGCOV yet the AFD was closed at the absolute earliest opportunity and the article has been expunged. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for the explanation. I'll strike my unenlightened comment _{(not sarcastic)}. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also fine with redirecting to the parent article per WP:NOPAGE, but I don't think the article should be deleted. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreed with comment above ~ BlitzPhoenix98, 1:19, 21 July 2025 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlitzPhoenix98 (talk • contribs)
Delete - does not meet WikiProject Tennis's requirements of a match setting records or being controversial – it also specifically asks users to "consult WP:TENNIS before creating such articles", which I assume didn't happen here. The match also does not meet the lasting significance criterion for event notability, since it was a "bog-standard Grand Slam final" as the nominator describes. --Iiii I I I (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine is what we should be avoiding in creating finals articles. This was a 3-set slaughter that will have no lasting significance. That's what we use the 2024 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles article for. Talking about the final, showing the draw, etc... Only when we truly have something magnificent do we create a stand-alone article on the final, as the Tennis Project Guidelines properly tell us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A routine final. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baddow Park

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

Baddow Park is not a settlement, but a hall located on the outskirts of Chelmsford. It does not meet WP:Geoland nor WP:GNG Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it appears "Baddow Park" is, at least at present, some kind of industrial park adjoining "Baddow Park House", making it probably even less notable than nom made it sound. —Rutebega (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sussex Thunder

AfDs for this article:

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

Lots of uncited claims. Multiple spots in the article with no information between several years. No information about 2002 refounding. Almost no secondary sources exist online, so the article fails WP:GNG. Very underdeveloped. Previously deleted due to copyright infringements. NotJamestack (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, American football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lots of stuff in Newspapers.com. Here are a few: [12][13][14] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think these solve the uncited claims issue I mentioned.
NotJamestack (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NotJamestack Uncited claims are not a reason to delete the article. You can just remove them yourself per WP:BURDEN. We only care about notability, not coverage or unsourced content – if you see problems like that, you're welcome to fix them yourself. The topic looks notable per WikiOriginal9's sources. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I meant was that they don't give enough proof of the claims in the article that are uncited to justify WP:SIGCOV, thus, the topic really should not need a standalone article.

NotJamestack (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article content does not determine notability. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of these were clipped yesterday, perhaps by you? If you can add any more, then feel free but I agree with Cremastra that it doesn't pass SIGCOV. But I remain neutral 🇪🇭 Easternsahara U T C 23:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I clipped them. What's that matter? Also, Cremastra did not say that. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Wyatt

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

Contested redirect with zero improvement. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – article is good and Google News turns up plenty of results. – Ike Lek (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reference in the article I would consider WP:SIGCOV. Did you find SIGCOV in Google News? Robby.is.on (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - does anyone know why this used to be a redirect to 1989 FA Vase final? I can't see any mention of him in that article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:11, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. The creator had a sandbox in which he wrote 1989 FA Vase final. After he moved that to mainspace, on top of the ensuing redirect he wrote this article. Then moved that as well. Repeatedly redirecting to the vase final should never have been done, what were they thinking? Geschichte (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I only found [15] and [16] which, especially not the last one, do not cut it. Many sources out there from the clubs. Geschichte (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Note that we do NOT usually redirect players to clubs. Giant Snowman 11:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Semi-pro footballer without WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benedicta Neysa Nathania

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

Based on the user name, this is an autobiography. There is no significant coverage to establish notability. Doing her post-doc, there is no indication that the specific notability for academics is met either. There are also this odd claim Benedicta is the female Secretary-General of the United Nations since 2021, still, she is kept as the ace of the United Nations and not publicized as his position. There is simply no such position. If it does exist and not publicized, then it isn't a significant position. Whpq (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bibliographies. Whpq (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Likely a HOAX as the UN position does not seem to exist. Either way, this is not a notable individual. Only one source and nothing else we can find, I don't see anything in Scholar or Gsearch. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator/subject removed 5 tags, but didn't address 4 of them. She added a source, so technically it's referenced, but having a single source in an article is tantamount to original research. While it has been sourced to at least 1 reference, there are still 5 major issues: it needs (1) more citations, (2) to be re-written from a (3) promotional (4) resume to an encyclopedia article, and (5) the extraordinary claims of notability need extraordinary proof. I remind you all that for a BLP, the burden of proof flips to the side that needs to come up with significant coverage in reliable sources. In 2025, everyone knows that Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC) P.S. The creator/subject actually knew that autobiography is discouraged here since at least last year, and this could not possibly be done at the worst possible time, that the richest person in the world wants to destroy us entirely, while the most powerful man in the world just wants to destroy our finances. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax/unverifiable per WP:V. Possible WP:CSD#G3 speedy deletion. I tried verifying the claim "Currently, Benedicta is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Cambridge and has completed a PhD in mathematics at Universität Hamburg". Google found nothing with her name on the Cambridge and Hamburg web sites. The Mathematics Genealogy Project does not list her. On another note, this article claims her to be the daughter of Sérgio Vieira de Mello but all I can find online is that his children were two significantly older sons [17] [18] [19] [20]. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence of hoax: there are no mathematics publications by anyone with the name "Neysa" or "Nathania" in MathSciNet and zbMATH, and both of these list essentially all legitimate mathematics publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark, Germany, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a possible hoax that, at any rate, makes no verifiable claims to significance. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See also "reincarnation of Joan of Arc" and "secret daughter of Dag Hammarsköljd" in the history of Sérgio Vieira de Mello. Moscow Mule (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. seems like a WP:HOAX and clearly doesnt pass WP:V at all. --hroest 16:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per other perspectives here, this article and associated user's contributions (whether officially or via IP addresses) are largely WP:HOAX. A cursory social media search appears to confirm this. SuperTah (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles final

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

Tennis Project Guidelines say we only create match articles of "matches of record-setting events or matches with significant controversies." Individual major match finals are only supposed to be created when the press describes it as one of the greatest of all-time. Routine matches like this one do not have the same extra notability. This a run-of-the-mill four-set Wimbledon final that is already covered in the 2025 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Tennis, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the same issue for the 2024 Wimbledon Championships Men's Singles final page, not notable at all and a run of the mill match, should also be deleted. A page doesn't need to made for every final played. Reaper1945 (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Boy that's for sure... that article is even worse than this one and maybe it's why this one was created. They thought it was normal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not as notable or epic as their French Open final showdown a month earlier. Avatar5991 (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not seeing any valid arguments for deletion. Apart from some tennis wikiproject conventions; what is the actual argument for deletion here? Clearly widely reported on with significant coverage in many reliable sources. Alternatively merge to obvious target 2025 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There will always be coverage for any final in any tournament but that is what we put in the 2025 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles article. We don't needed an extra housekeeping page just for a final. When it is something spectacular, sure, since folks and historians will be talking about it for years. But this is a routime finals that is already covered in another article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the practical reason for your opinion, though I would still say objectively the final it is a notable topic. I could understand why some may think WP:ROUTINE would apply. When you say it's already covered in the other article- only the result is mentioned, no background or context, as far as I can see. Therefore I think that merge is more understandable than outright deletion.. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the first time since 2008 that same two players were at the finals of Roland Garros and Wimbledon, one won by Alcaraz, the other one won by Sinner, which makes it notable for their rivalry. Plus, it reminds of the Federer-Nadal rivalry in most ways, such as the long-winning streak of Alcaraz against Sinner (0-5), and revenge by Sinner on grass court. Even though this final might not be classified as one of the greats, several other final pages still exist to this day and each of them has their own reason and significance just like this one. It does not need to be an all-time classic. I don't think it is a big necessity to go delete them all of a sudden. Enigmationn (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The further I think about it, this match kinda is like the parabola of the French Open, and also historically marked the first time Alcaraz lost his first final much like how Sinner lost his first a month ago. Not fair to delete. - BlitzPhoenix98; 16:37, 21 July 2025 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlitzPhoenix98 (talk • contribs)

Delete - does not meet WikiProject Tennis's match requirements, which also asks users to "consult WP:TENNIS before creating such articles". The match additionally is unlikely to meet the lasting significance criterion for event notability. Previous two keep votes seem to be based on emotion, rather than policy or citations that prove its significance. --Iiii I I I (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bog-standard final already covered adequately in the tournament articles. Does not need a stand alone article. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now it has turned into that every time there is an Sinner-Alcaraz GS final, a page will be created based on "this is a part of Alcaraz–Sinner rivalry". WP:NOTINHERITED. Also, the quality of this article is not up to the standard like 2012 Australian Open – Men's singles final. Actually, most matches listed at Category:Tennis matches at Grand Slam tournaments, should consider AFDs. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good point. It's very much against Wikipedia protocol. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . The reason is simple: if these pages are created just because it is about the Alcaraz and Sinner rivalry, we should also create pages for all the Djokovic vs Nadal, Federer vs Nadal and Djokovic vs Federer finals. 2803:A3E0:14E1:54C0:79A6:B300:74BD:4C93 (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be worse than that! There are a heck of a lot more huge rivalries in tennis.... Laver/Rosewall, Evert/Navratilova, Borg/McEnroe, Edberg/Becker, Court/King... everyone of their finals would also need to be created. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Wimbledon Championships – Women's singles final which had a Redirect outcome. I've been approached by an editor who wants a relisting or reversion of this outcome and I said to them that it would, in part, depend on how this discussion was closed. I just thought I should mention this as the articles are now tied together more than in the past. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People's Express

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

Non-notable and very small English independent bus operator which serves as more of a footnote in the history of parent Probus Management. Single paragraph in the 'history' section refers to People's Express, the rest, besides a change of trading name, refers to Probus and its subsequent acquisition by Go-Ahead/Diamond. Hullian111 (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. Hullian111 (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in independent sources. Most of what I can find refers to the airline, as such fails GNG and NCORP. As it is, it's halfway to a fork of Probus Managment. LightlySeared (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Morjaria

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

The article about this person does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. There is no significant coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Most of the citations are press releases, interviews, or promotional blog-style content. Leicesteroftime (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Leicesteroftime (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see coverage we'd use to show notability [21], is typcial. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can see coverage from independent, reliable sources like Chortle, and numerous articles not cited in national papers. Also significant BBC coverage. 82.3.97.84 (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC) — 82.3.97.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep given the above 82.3.97.84 (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC) — 82.3.97.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep similar notability to others in similar category, BBC Morning Live Doctor 2A02:8012:8848:0:956B:C9C:EF8E:26DB (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC) — 2A02:8012:8848:0:956B:C9C:EF8E:26DB (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's not how we decide these things. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep independent sources - Guardian, The Times, BBC News 139.28.209.78 (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC) — 139.28.209.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please link to your sources. The Guardian has no coverage of Morjaria; see this search. I don't see any BBC News articles either that mention him, although they're harder to search for.

The Times has one article that seems to mention him. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Oaktree. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Wilks

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

I am the subject of this page. I do not believe I have done enough notable things to warrant the page's existence and, as a relatively private person, I find the fact that it exists troubling and stressful. I would like it removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonwilksmusic (talk • contribs) 12:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 July 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very marginally notable at all, so WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE should apply here Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Heale

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this BLP about a journalist and news presenter, and added a reference to a local newspaper. I am not seeing enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, however, and he doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST. The other two references in the article are primary sources. Tacyarg (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Radio, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Coverage seems limited to official (work) bio plus local news press-release like coverage of him retiring. Too little too meet WP:NBIO IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:32, 20 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Henderson

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

Clear WP:COI or WP:PE. Sources only mention the subject in passing, and notability appears to be lacking. Article includes some promotional content. Fails: WP:GNG. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are several unreliable sources cited in the article, and the content appears to be AI-generated. The subject fails to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 06:45, 18 July 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.

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]

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]

Sreenath Subrahmanyam

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

Academic who doesn't appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Provided references are links to papers by the subject, not articles about the subject, and I didn't find significant independent coverage. Note: Article was originally tagged by User:Sexy scientist without any proper followup--I have chosen to complete the nomination myself. @Sexy scientist: For future AfD nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 16:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Environment, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, England, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Delete. Very much a borderline case. He has one publication with 1200 cites where he is a middle author, and another with 430 as one of many. His senior co-authors have high h-factors, so this is a fairly high citation area and his total citations and h-factor are not great. No awards of note that I can see. Decisive for me is that his citations with year are stagnant to dropping. I cannot give him the benefit of the doubt; if his citation trend was strong I would have. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is also a strike against him that the top-cited papers appear to be student work (they list the university where he received his doctorate as his affiliation) and therefore are difficult to disentangle from his more-senior coauthors. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is a low rung scientist working with other scientists and still generating low quality research and review articles. There is even a section labelled as 'popular articles' which are his most cited articles as any place author and still, they are low quality papers. Sexy scientist (talk) 10:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure, if this chap is a "low rung scientist". The person is a Fellow in two prestigious International societies--- FRSB and FRSC, both of which need solid contributions to get admittted into. I read on the internet that admissions to these societies are by nominations from other accomplished Professors. I would give him the benefit of doubt at the least. Tuckerbaba (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid, the "popular articles" section does not appear to present the most cited articles of the author claimed by Sexy Scientist. Please see below.
Environmental impacts of thermal power plant: case study (4 publications presented in google scholar with 0 citations)

Salivary proteins of plant-feeding hemipteroids–implication in phytophagy (109 citations)

Application of natural receptors in sensors and assays (166 citations)

Analytical methods for determination of mycotoxins: a review (1299 citations)

Ecological modelling of a wetland for phytoremediating Cu, Zn and Mn in a gold–copper mine site using Typha domingensis (Poales: Typhaceae) near Orange, NSW, Australia (6 citations)

Effective climate change adaptation strategies for biodiversity conservation (6 citations)
His top six citations are (1299, 430, 229, 166, 109 and 98). Perhaps, the cited articles in the "popular articles" section seem to broadly represent the subject areas covered by the author. Tuckerbaba (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ever since I read the comments by @Sexy scientist I reviewed several WIKI articles and obviously learned a great deal. I also researched the contributions of "Sreenath Shbrahmanyam" in much more detail and here is my response. While ,I appreciate your engagement with the AfD discussion, I am equally concerned that some of your comments—particularly referring to Sreenath Subrahmanyam as a “low rung scientist” producing “low quality research”—could be interpreted as defamatory. These statements don’t offer verifiable evidence or reliable sourcing; they appear to hinge on personal interpretation of citation counts and research status rather than documented facts. Wikpedia policy emphasizes that serious assertions about living individuals must be backed by independent, reputable sources

Further, the tone and phrasing of your contributions could give the impression of bias or personal motivation. Wikipedia's BLP and notability policies require evidence-based, neutral commentary—personal opinions or competitive bias have no place in such discussions. The tone and choice of language suggest a possible conflict of interest or personal agenda rather than an objective, policy-driven assessment. It might unintentionally suggest a competitive or adversarial agenda, rather than objective evaluation against WP:NACADEMIC notability standards. For example, your characterization of his student‑led work and phrasing around “low quality” may be perceived as judgmental rather than constructive.

Could you please clarify the independent, third‑party sources that substantiate these qualifications, rather than rely on subjective descriptors? If you believe the article fails WP:NACADEMIC criteria, it would be much more effective and policy‑compliant to cite specific academic guidelines or cite peer‑reviewed critiques or coverage demonstrating insufficient impact. That way, we can progress the discussion on clear, policy‑focused grounds. Thank you for reflecting on this, and I look forward to a more source‑driven dialogue.

I have compiled more evidence to demonstrate that the person we discuss here has contributed more than immensely. I will present them shortly Tuckerbaba (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ldm1954, Many thanks for your comment. The author seems to have won a couple of internationally acclaimed awards. Tuckerbaba (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TuckerbabaFRSC is a standard "Fellow" election which is not that selective, so (existing concensus) does not qualify for WP:NPROF#C2. On their page FRSB refer to Fellow as "their highest class of membership", which is not encouraging. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is what you see on our own Wikipedia

"Fellowship of the Royal Society of Chemistry (FRSC) is one of the most prestigious awards conferred by the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) in the United Kingdom. Existing Fellows include award winning scientists and Nobel prize winners"

"Fellowship of the Royal Society of Biology (FRSB), previously Fellowship of the Society of Biology (FSB), is an award and fellowship granted to individuals that the Royal Society of Biology has adjudged to have made a "prominent contribution to the advancement of the biological sciences, and has gained no less than five years of experience in a position of senior responsibility".

Fellowship

Fellows are entitled to use the post-nominal letters FRSB. As of 2016 examples of fellows include Sir David Attenborough, Martin Hume Johnson, Jasmin Fisher, Sir Tom Blundell and Dame Nancy Rothwell. See the Category: Fellows of the Royal Society of Biology for more examples" Tuckerbaba (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and take a look at it below [ from Wikipedia:Notability (academics) ]

The author qualifies on #1, #2, #3 which has been contested by an editor above, #4, and #5.

Criteria

Shortcut
WP:NACADEMIC

Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria. The merits of an article on the academic will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow.
The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).

The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

Tuckerbaba (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (soft) as a bit too soon. Bearian (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Publish: I would suggest that the article continue to be published for two compelling reasons. 1. A new approach has been developed by him that is being followed around the world for the "computational design of molecular imprint" and 2. for proposing that natural receptors can be used for bio-recognition. I conducted some random internet research, and before these two papers, there was no mention of the work. Additionally, he is the first author on both papers. To support him, a quick check on the impact factor of advanced materials (the journal in which one of the two ideas was published has an exceptionally high impact factor of 28.9). This scientist is also an FRSB and an FRSC, both of which are extremely prestigious and difficult to obtain.

Additionally, I visited the FRSB website, which describes who is awarded the FRSB.

"A Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology (FRSB) is an individual recognized for their prominent contribution to the advancement of the biological sciences and who has demonstrated at least five years of experience in a senior leadership role. Fellowship signifies distinction in biological research, teaching, or the application of biological principles. Fellows are entitled to use the post-nominal letters FRSB."

I did not check the requirements for FRSC, but I am sure only accomplished scientists are permitted to be a part of the league.

I will therefore recommend that the article be published. Vijay Venkateshwar (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this editor has made no other edits. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that the article be published, possibly with some revisions if the other editors deem it suitable.

Often, in science, although the first author does the majority of the work, the other contributors may make substantial contributions, fundamental, and conceptual on many occasions. It will be unfair to make assumptions and delete the article altogether.

I will clearly give the benefit of the doubt. The scientist also introduced some new ideas in the field, and they have been shown to have helped several research groups around the globe.

Additionally, although perhaps not in the tenets, the Wiki articles also should serve as motivational reads. I think this article in more than one way stands motivational. Musicalheart (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the only other edits this editor has made are to request an undelete of a draft. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not use AI to write your comments in a discussion on this platform. I can cause them to be devalued in the closure decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shay Martyn

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

Redirect to List of St Helens R.F.C. players as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this rugby league player. JTtheOG (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - made his SL debut for St Helens.Fleets (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- From reading other AfD I believe making a debut is no longer sufficient for notability. Mn1548 (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable career and lack of references. Mn1548 (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Not notable enough for a stand-alone article. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keane Gilford

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

Redirect to List of St Helens R.F.C. players as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - made his SL debut for St Helens.Fleets (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- From reading other AfD I believe making a debut is no longer sufficient for notability. Mn1548 (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable career and lack of references. Mn1548 (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Not notable enough for a stand-alone article. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Zeusch Aviation Beechcraft King Air crash

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and United Kingdom. XYZ1233212 (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sure I understand but could you elaborate how this is any different from the other crashes i mentioned on the See also section? An exact replica of this plane crash was back in 2017 same result and same plane model; 2017 Essendon Airport Beechcraft King Air crash. As I said but I also want to hear from other experienced Wikipedian editors on what they think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megabyte21 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided some information about previous aviation articles below that were created very quickly, followed by a swift AfD. This one falls into the same WP:DELAY category. 11WB (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can you claim it is An exact replica of this plane crash was back in 2017 same result and same plane model; 2017 Essendon Airport Beechcraft King Air crash? The investigation has obly just begun and hasnt reached a single conclusion about probably cause. Sure there are some obvious similarities, but an encyclopedia needs to be based on facts not speculation. Dfadden (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This incident likely resulted in many fatalities, probably in the double-digits and shut down a major airport. Because of that, this article is notable and it does not fall under point 4. Cyrobyte (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Four dead, not "double-digits". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters. Any decent closer would discard WP:BIGNUMBER arguments before determining consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and Redirect. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON might be worth considering here. The event literally just happened, there's no way of knowing whether or not this will have any lasting coverage or wider impact. As of right now it's a tragic accident that may, or may not, have sufficient coverage in the upcoming weeks and months to justify a standalone article. Send it to draft now for incubation, and put a redirect to London Southend Airport#Accidents and incidents in the meantime. nf utvol (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to closer. There appears to be a raft of "Keep" comments that are nothing more than votes, or do not make any policy-based arguments and are not substantially different from the examples listed in WP:ATA. nf utvol (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I concur with the above. Also, many of the arguments in favour of keeping are grounded entirely in recentism, which while well intentioned, seems to lack informed consideration of content policies based on existing consensus. Dfadden (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a very notable event as there has been significant worldwide news coverage on this aviation accident (not just on UK news). Think of the helicopter that crashed in Manhattan earlier this year. Although it was a flight with only a few passengers, it still gained significant news coverage. This one is the same as this. Prothe1st (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all aviation accidents get news coverage, often worldwide especially if there are fatalities, with a burst of coverage in the immediate aftermath of the accident, and maybe another burst when the accident investigation report is issued. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Light aircraft crashes very rarely get any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond that initial news cycle, and it is equally rare to see any WP:LASTING effects (such as changes to aircraft or airport procedures). The article can always be recreated if such continued coverage or lasting effects do occur. But in the meantime, this crash clearly falls under WP:EVENTCRIT#4: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents [...]) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of right now, london southend airport is still closed and will remain closed “until further notice” according to news reports. It has been two days since it’s happened and this crash clearly affects a lot of people such as those travelling or returning to/from holiday from this airport by airlines like easyjet. Also is going to cost easyjet quite a bit of money. So that is also why it further gives this event additional enduring significance to make it a notable event. Also if you read some of the other comments, you can see that someone said it’s the deadliest aviation accident in the uk since the helicopter crash in 2018 in Leicester, and also the deadliest airplane crash since the plane crash in shoreham. Prothe1st (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closure of a relatively minor airport for a few days, and the associated short-term impact on passengers and airlines, are unimportant with regard to notability. Imagine yourself 10 years from now when assessing their importance. Likewise, being the deadliest accident since the last deadlier one is not in itself indicative of notability! Rosbif73 (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable incident, four confirmed dead and airport closed for two days. Lots of significant news coverage. Definitely passes WP:GNG. This is Paul (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This seems to have been moved since the afd discussion was created. This is Paul (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unsure of the policy on this, but the article in question is now called Zeusch Aviation Flight 1. I am unable to comment on notability yet as this article was only created today and then subsequently nominated for deletion 90 minutes later. (Similar occurrences happened here, here and here). I think WP:DELAY should apply to those 3 examples and this AfD. 11WB (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the crash took place less than 12 hours ago, and the article name has changed, along with information being updated regularly, I have added the recentevent tag to the article to reflect this. I think this should be the case going forward for articles created so soon after the event. 11WB (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it should follow WP:DELAY, which says It is recommended that editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable. This should be a merge to London Southend Airport. An article about an event should not have its own article until there is sustained secondary coverage, which it definitely does not at this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*I second this. Redirect (as the information is already there) to London Southend Airport#Accidents and incidents for the time being, until a clear need for a standalone article is shown. 11WB (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the newer comments for keep below, I am reconsidering my vote. I think in this instance I will withdraw my vote for redirection and change it to keep based on @Harrz's point regarding this being the most deadly UK aviation accident since the 2018 Leicester helicopter crash. 11WB (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to London Southend Airport#Accidents and incidents. Light aircraft crashes are rarely notable and there are no reasons to suspect this one will be. Usual caveats apply: in the unlikely event that we do see significant sustained coverage beyond the initial news cycle, or other notability factors come to light, it would be possible to recreate an article at that time. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then explain to me why you deleted it 2000 Teheran Airport collision, Red Air Flight 203, 2009 F-27 Indonesian Air Force crash, Boston Logan runway incursion, O'Hare runway incursion? Why? Szymondro1123 (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And West Coast Airlines F-27 crash Szymondro1123 (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And 748 Air Services crash Szymondro1123 (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to argue that we should keep this article because other "similar" incidents have articles? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although it may look like it isn't notable, it is since 4 people are dead, and London Southend Airport had to close for 2 days. Another thing is that the article was just recently created, give it some time! Subbie2010 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i agree with you Szymondro1123 (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It occurred to me that this could, or maybe should, have been created in WikiNews – but I could not find this event reported there. On balance, since this article already exists, I vote to keep – at least for now and we can revisit notability at a later date, after the accident report has been submitted. While other fatal aircraft accidents may not (yet) have their own Wiki page, I am sympathetic to having Wiki pages for such fatal aircraft accidents as a balanced and independent repository of records of such events.

Enquire (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Szymondro1123 (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you, especially since there are other similar light aircraft crashes with their own article:

WittypediaEditor (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WittypediaEditor: The existence of other articles is no reason to keep or delete this article. Take a look at WP:WHATABOUT, which covers this in more depth. Either way, in the first two articles you mentioned, they exhibited a level of sustained coverage that lends notability to their subjects. The third should probably be brought to AfD for failing to have sustained coverage (all the coverage that is referenced appears to be from the day of or day after the crash, save for the final investigation report which was released a year later). nf utvol (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I think it is too early to decide since it just happened. It has got a lot of attention for crashing at a major airport. On the other hand, only 4 people died, and it was a smaller aircraft. I don't think anybody famous was onboard. But I am still split on whether this should get deleted or not. Zaptain United (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created rapidly. Whilst I think the accident will likely be notable eventually, at the moment it's definitely too early to rely on preliminary reporting for an entire article. 11WB (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: definitely notable - being reported worldwide, shut down an international airport indefinitely and there will definitely be lasting coverage as there is an ongoing investigation and this is the deadliest aviation accident in the UK since 2018 (Leicester), the deadliest plane crash in the UK since 2015 (Shoreham) and the deadliest commercial plane crash in the UK since 2008 or 1999 (Biggin Hill or Glasgow - not sure); some of those may be incorrect, if so I am sorry! harrz ^talk 00:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough for inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to London Southend Airport#Accidents and incidents. No indication that this is anything other than a non-notable accident with minimal loss of life. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay. i'm going to go for keep 208.161.12.215 (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Incubate until after the current news spike has settled down and some actual factual information emerges about the WP:LASTING significance of this accident. There is a lot of coverage right now (plane crashes are always hot news items), but WP:EVENT requires more than this to establish notability and its a good idea to WP:DELAY to see if that threshhold will be met since wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In the meantime would support a mention in the London Southend Airport accidents and incidents section Dfadden (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i don't know what the hell happened. keep for a while until we know what the hell happened 208.161.12.215 (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the complete opposite of what the policy says we should do! If we dont know what the hell happened, then we shouldnt be making articles in an encyclopedia that should be factual! Wikipedia is not a news blog! Dfadden (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy is The worst in world! Szymondro1123 (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Szymondro1123: If you find policy to be bad, then I suggest you take it to the appropriate talk page and advocate for changes. Complaining about it here is, at best, immature, and at worst, a sign that you're not here to build an encyclopedia. nf utvol (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm stays on keep Szymondro1123 (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
soon all the plane crashes will be removed if you are going in this direction Szymondro1123 (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Os ari us 22:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant crash, closed the airport for two days, and four dead. This is not a minor news story, it has been reported internationally; WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. Also keep per Harrz's comment about this being the most deadly UK aviation accident since 2018. Cagliost (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Szymondro1123 (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article was only recently created less than a week ago and there aren't that much citations right now but when there are more citations, it might be worth to keep this article. 2A0A:EF40:5BD:C501:A4D0:1AFF:FE05:7D0F (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Szymondro1123 (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Draftify An important airport closure for 2 days it’s not a normal thing on aviation accidents, but I’m still not sure about WP:LASTING (thinking about that is WP:CRYSTAL), but for right now, Im fine with a weak keep, Im going to see the coverage of this like a month later to see if it passes WP:LASTING. Protoeus (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No relevant sources since a week ago, fails WP:LASTING. Protoeus (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, but likely Redirect to a list later. I reviewed the Notability Essays based on the arguments presented above and it seems to me that small accidents fall close to the edge of notability. WP:EVENTCRITERIA clearly states that routine news events (including most accidents) are not notable unless something gives them enduring significance. This article, and most articles like it, don't have overt enduring significance. The reason I think that's close to the edge of notability is because I value the overall sum of accident information. I think they are notable in concert. However, my personal beliefs are insufficient criteria for keeping, and the essays seem to say that articles which are only useful in concert with other articles are more appropriately aggregated in lists. Therefore, I believe this article may as well be kept for the time being to let its significance play out, but if nothing changes it must eventually be redirected to an appropriate list. There's a lot of similar articles that need this treatment, as well. -Baltarstar (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that an article must be notable NOW in order to be kept: we can't guess today whether the subject will become notable at some point in the future. If additional factors giving an event enduring significance come to light later, a deleted article can always be recreated. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small GA aircraft, no wikinotable people involved. This can be adequately covered at the article on London Southend Airport. Mjroots (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article - it's a commercial aircraft which suffered a whole loss and killed all occupants aboard. For the people saying delete, then please delete all of the incidents and accidents involving caravans etc. to keep your argument consistent. The ACFT involved is a MEA. Furthermore, its occupants consisted of both pax. and crew. Deleting this article makes no sense. I recommend strongly keeping it.

Cheers. Captain N334AA (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's all good and well, but on what WP:POLICY are you making that argument? Are you able to provide sources that indicate sustained significant coverage of the event? If not, then why shouldn't this should be draftified until coverage exists, with a redirect to the airport's accidents and incidents page in the meantime? nf utvol (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to London Southend Airport#Accidents and incidents as an alternative to deletion per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alim Abubakre

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

PROD deleted by a user with their only contributions being to this article. Does not appear to pass WP:NPROF, no valid secondary sourcing to prove notability. No WP:RS...WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 15:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Nigeria, and United Kingdom. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 15:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the reason on the talk page about WP:RSNG is sufficient to keep this. However, the page will need additional copy editing.--83.159.74.123 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. There is actually some secondary sources covering the subject, but few (or none) are independent or reliable and most are primary or self-published. After taking a cursory look of the sources, the basic gist is: a successful businessman who does not pass the threshold of notability. And as a side note, the single-purpose user who created the article was blocked for sockpuppetry. GuardianH 12:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I think only point 7 of WP:NACADEMIC is being made by this article, but it does not really explain how the subject is notable in their non-research work. Only a list of positions and awards are provided with no context or explanation. Yue🌙 23:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zoë Mode

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

Contested PROD; company fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources are trivial announcements or press releases and do not reach the level necessary to indicate this is a notable game developer. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:00, 13 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) 12:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kuju Entertainment per WP:ATD. IgelRM (talk) 23:35, 19 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) 12:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kuju Entertainment. Coverage is extremely brief. —Rutebega (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M53 motorway coach crash

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is better covered at List of traffic collisions (2000–present) or M53 motorway. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, United Kingdom, and England. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:17, 12 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) 19:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CaptionHub

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

This one doesn't hold up to WP:NCORP. There's no real coverage from secondary, independent, reliable sources. Most of what's cited are press releases, interviews with company reps, blog-style promo writeups, and the usual business updates you'd expect from any startup. Nothing here truly points to the company being notable. Junbeesh (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and United Kingdom. Junbeesh (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 12 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) 08:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samata (fashion entrepreneur)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable fashion designer. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Acoustical (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, Ghana, and United Kingdom. Acoustical (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good amount of significant coverage to meets the notability of the subject, pass WP:NBIO. Raj Shri21 (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please point us to specific sources that provide a good amount of significant coverage? Acoustical (talk) 01:51, 21 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) 01:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Robot

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

Fails WP:NCORP with a lack of significant coverage. As its PROD was contested years ago, I am forced to nominate it for deletion. Jim Rossignol is a possible merge target, though it is also unclear whether that page is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United Kingdom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE - The prod was removed due to my comment on the notability. [22] It had multiple mentions in national and international news sites, including The Guardian, PC Gamer and Channel 4 Education's website, as noted on the PROD placer's page. The consensus was to remove the PROD. Conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4 were all met.

If notability fails, I would think merging with Sir, You Are Being Hunted was more applicable than pure deletion. If deletion is the way, please place in my personal space so I can archinve before deletion if possible. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires more than just a trivial mention. Simple mentions in the media do not fulfill significant coverage. If there is significant coverage you are free to link to it, but the used sources appear to be about a specific game. BTW, I am not suggesting that Fallen City isn't notable and it very well might be, but notability isn't inherited from that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with Sir, You Are Being Hunted wouldn't work so well since they also developed The Signal From Tolva. There isn't an obvious single locale for redirection. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have two different suggested Merge target articles here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jim Rossignol per WP:ATD. --Mika1h (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Rossignol appears even weaker in notability and I would suggest to nominate that for deletion as well. Redirect to Rock, Paper, Shotgun instead. IgelRM (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete/Merge: Big Robot was a small indie studio founded in 2010 and reportedly became inactive after around 2022, with its website going offline by 2019, suggesting that the company is now defunct. Coverage is limited to trade and niche gaming sources: While one of its titles 'Sir, You Are Being Hunted' received some attention and its follow‑up 'The Signal From Tölva' had modest critical reception, the studio lacks substantial independent coverage in major media outlets, gaming journals, or academic analysis.--Policking (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1996–97 FA Women's Premier League Cup

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

Contested redirect a couple of times without the addition of a single in-depth reliable source. And Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why this article should be deleted? This is one of many cup competition seasons recorded on here that have not had this action put towards them. Why is this particular article causing an issue? It is sourced with two reliable sources (The Football Association Website and a fan created site which has been used as a source for other articles of that era), which lists all the results and a detailed record of the final. This is consistent with all other seasons of the Premier League Cup which have not been flagged in this manner. This page was previously a redirect to the main Premier League Cup page, which was not a suitable arrangement as it did not contain the detail which has been expressed here. This is also part of the chain of articles that allows people to navigate through the history of the completion season by season, both through the links at the top of the article and at the bottom of the page.

This article cannot be deleted, as it is a key part of the history of the Premier League Cup Competition. If there is anything further that needs adding to it, or any amendments that need making to it, please let me know so these changes can be made. Thank You. Adam Salter (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation is above. Zero in-depth sources from independent, reliable sources. Right now it has one source from a primary source (not independent), and one fan-based source (not reliable). Also, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if there aren't currently enough sources currently attached to this, then I will find more to use as citations to back up the article.

Are you able to elaborate further what is classed as 'in depth' for a source, and how great a quantity of sources are needed to deem this article acceptable? Adam Salter (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you please elaborate on how the Full Time FA Source is not an Independent Source? What link or conflict have you established between it and Wikipedia? Thanks. Adam Salter (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FA Women's National League Cup#List of seasons and finals as possible search term. Giant Snowman 10:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a redirect preferable over the actual article in this instance? Adam Salter (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as has already been explained above (and which you seem to acknowledge yesterday), there are not enough in-depth sources. See WP:SIGCOV. Redirection is an alternative to deletion, see WP:ATD. Giant Snowman 13:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have since added plenty of sources to the article though, including stats website, newspapers articles and matchday programmes. Is this not acceptable? Adam Salter (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stats websites and match reports are not SIGCOV. Please actually bother to read the links I send you, I'm trying to help. Giant Snowman 15:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your help this, honestly. And I know you have to deal with a lot of these discussions and a lot of these similar arguments with other pages, so thank you. It's just a bit confusing for me, because I've read the SIGCOV, and to me it describes a source which is an all encompassing one for the article, rather than just a few side mentions the other sources may have had. I therefore thought the FA Full Time Site was exactly that, as it covers all the results of the competition for that season. It wasn't a match report written at the time, it's a page of information that does describe the Final, and then lists all of the results for the year at the bottom. I assumed this was a Verifiable Source, and the way I had interpreted it was that this would be my primary SIGCOV Source, and then everything else would be Secondary to supplement it. Apparently, the argument is that the FA Full Time Site is not independent from Wikipedia, which I cannot fathom. There is no conflict of interest here with the FA, they aren't going to financially benefit from this, are they? Why is the Full Time FA Site not a SIGCOV source? Adam Salter (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is very much independent from Wikipedia, it is just not independent from the cup itself as it is a FA competition. SportingFlyer T·C 16:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this competition was indeed covered in the media as evidenced by the sources currently in the article. The FA Site isn't SIGCOV because it's not independent of the competition, but competitions are a bit odd because one of the things which makes a competition notable is continued routine coverage, which is exactly what is in the article. Not all of the sources are good for notability including the matchday programmes, but there's more than enough here to keep. SportingFlyer T·C 08:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also note to the closer, when this was nominated there were only two sources, neither of which were good. SportingFlyer T·C 08:13, 12 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) 18:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Sufficient WP:SIGCOV for a competition edition article. Svartner (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:19, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with Svartner that there is sufficient WP:SIGCOV for a competition edition article. SDGB1217 (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - since there is not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, can someone please point to the policy for reduced coverage for "competition edition articles"? Thank you.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ComplyAdvantage

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

Almost entirely promotional with serious WP:COI concerns and lacking WP:RS to independently establish notability. Amigao (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Software, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - the article does seem to use sources that are not commonly deemed reliable, however, the tone, I suppose could be improved. Kvinnen (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This company is not notable. Aneirinn (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pinging @Liance: who was the AfC reviewer. There are content issues, but putting those aside for the moment the page meets WP:NCORP. You have to weed through the mentions and routine announcements, but then there are staff written articles that meet WP:CORPDEPTH in Business Insider and ComputerWeekly. Here are a few book sources out of the hundred or so found in Google Books as well. As WP:DINC, the COI can be tagged and someone can cleanup when they have an opportunity. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do CNMall41's sources satisfy WP:NCORP?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While ComputerWeekly appears to meet WP:NCORP the only other source I could access (book) provides a paragraph summarising what ComplyAdvantage is, alongside 6 other mentions that I can’t view (due to limitations in what google books will show). While this may nominally meet WP:NCORP, unless the other mentions are more substantial I don’t think it is “significant coverage” because it is a singular paragraph within a 233 page book. I am unable to access any of the other sources provided by CNMall41, and so can neither confirm nor refute that they meet WP:NCORP. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 19:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The BI article is not paywalled so maybe it is a browser issue. It is written by a staff writer of Business Insider so it has full editorial oversight. The title is "This London fintech aims to become the worst enemy of money-laundering terrorists and oligarchs" and covers the company in-depth (meeting WP:CORPDEPTH), including a potential IPO of the company, the founder, and other information in the 15 paragraph article. For books, there rarely are books that are written about a company as a whole, but the fact that so many mention it shows that it is worthy of notice. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with CNMall41, the sources provided by them are enough to confirm the notability. Gepeas (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Looking at the sources mentioned above by CNMall41:

Business Insider is based on an interview with the founder, fails ORGIND
ComputerWeekly simply regurgitated this PR announcement fails ORGIND
Book "Strategic Approaches to Banking Business and Sustainable Development Goals" repeats the generic description of the company found everywhere (e.g. "Their AI-driven fraud and AML risk detection solution reduces false positives by up to 70% and shortens onboarding cycle times by up to 50% offering capabilities such as unique data scanning using graph network detection, identity clustering, and dynamic thresholds" and points to this blog (not RS), fails ORGIND
Book "Fintech 5.0" looks the best of the bunch and has a 14 sentence descriptive paragraph on the company. Unfortunately, nothing here can be said to be anything but repeating claims that the company makes, such as reducing false positives by 70% and onboarding time by 50%, etc. I don't see anything here that looks like "independent content". Fails ORGIND.
Book "Fund your 9others" contains a "My vision for ComplyAdvantage" quote from the founder. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
Book "Anti-Money Laundering Counter Financing Terrorism and Cybersecurity in the Banking Industry" has a short paragraph referencing this FT article which is an announcement from Goldman Sachs about investing $20m into the company. Not an unaffiliated source, fails ORGIND.

We have extensive marketing activity, quotes and interviews, along with announcements. None of the sourcing meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We always see extensive marketing activity for companies. It is what they do. The fact that they provide information to sources does not negate independent coverage based on that information from publications with editorial oversight. I normally agree with your assessments but dismissing the BI reference is a stretch in my opinion. If we do that, we can disregard any article written by any company when they announce anything. Churnalism is much different than speaking with someone from the company and including some of their quotes. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[[WP:DEPENDENTCOVERAGE|Dependent coverage] should be automatically disregarded unless there is sufficient independent in-depth content evidencing opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The test for establishing notability is different to that used to support facts/information within an article where is it acceptable for the journalist/writer to faithfully and reliably regurgitate content provided by the company. Looking at the BI article again, I cannot find sufficient in-depth independent content. For me, the paragraphs immediately after the "Costs and fines" heading in the BI article show some signs of the journalist/writer having looked at the "problem" of money laundering in general since there are links to a number of other articles. Even the point about the Nordic Banks recently teaming up, which was provided by the CEO in the interview, is linked to a reuters article. Although none of this is about the company, it at least (arguably) demonstrates that the journalist/writer independently investigated that point. Unfortunately none of the contains any in-depth information about the company, and everything after the paragraph starting with "Wheras some firms...") follows the format of a quote accompanied by either a "lead in" or "lead out" sentence, setting the context - not "independent content". If you see things differently, where do you see sufficient in-depth "independent content" about the company? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Bull

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

Fails WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV. All the sources currently on the page that aren't to, like, youtube videos are very short and barely talk about him. From google there's a Forbes WP:INTERVIEW but that's all I found. I like the guy's music but he doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for an article TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am familiar with DB from Epic Rap Battles of History. From an inspection of the references, there appear to be many from YouTube and X, which are not reliable and violate WP:RS/PS. I am uncertain how to vote for now, so I will wait for others to give their opinions before settling on a vote. 11WB (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found a feature from Huck (magazine). IgelRM (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - aside from the aforementioned Forbes article and piece in Huck Magazine I've found a short piece in Vice and an interview in Tubefilter, additionally it's a dead link but existing references in the article to Metro and a short piece from Computerandvideogames, all of which are notable outlets with their own articles. Aside from those, coverage of his work in TheNextWeb, an interview in Gizorama and an article from 2012 in VentureBeat. As much as a few of these aren't amazing sources (some veer into failing WP:INTERVIEW) I think there's enough here to suggest notability. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- forbes and huck -> interviews
- vice -> 3 paragraphs hardly in-depth coverage
- tubefilter is also an interview
- the metro article has half a paragraph on him
- computerandvideogames -> two very short paragraphs
- thenextweb is mainly about the video not dan bull, like 2 paragraphs mention him and only as the creator of this video basically
- gizorama maybe you meant to link to something else he's not mentioned?
- venturebeat is again not really about dan but a video he made
The only significant coverage is from interviews which aren't secondary or independent of the subject TheLoyalOrder (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While 2-3 paragraphs may not be in-depth coverage on their own, I wouldn't call them insignificant. It is a start, and if he's significant enough to be interviewed on several separate occasions, then it stands to reason that there may be more out there. Here are some other potential sources I found excluding several smaller mentions I skipped over which included an NYT article and an Indian business magazine:
https://aestheticamagazine.com/youtube-killed-the-video-star/

https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bwh&AN=8OGE.7E66604B.0D14FB4B&site=eds-live&scope=site

https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=59691139&site=eds-live&scope=site
Also, surprisingly enough, he might meet WP:NMG, but I'd love to here from someone more familiar with those guidelines.

- Ike Lek (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not sure how I've managed to link the wrong Gizorama article; meant to link this - again an interview, but as Ike Lek says, it's a start. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A further review of newly found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Epic Rap Battles of History; Aesthetica source looks fine, others don't appear to add much. IgelRM (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That merge or redirect would likely be confusing, as he was only a guest in that series to the best of my knowledge. Ike Lek (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, perhaps just a redirect although even that might be confusing. IgelRM (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirct per IgelRM. Subject doesn't really have its own WP:SIGCOV outside of the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read above? I do think a merge could be confusing as Ike Lek said. IgelRM (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last try for a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment another participant had mentioned WP:NMG so I did a bit of digging. I found this article https://creativecommons.org/2012/05/02/musician-dan-bull-reaches-9-on-uk-indie-charts-using-cc0/ which suggests he might have charted with his song "Sharing is Caring". I have verified this information on the official website https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/23523/dan-bull/ but I'll need another opinion as to whether those subcharts would merit notability under criteria 2. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 23:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning Keep: With several songs in specialist national WP:GOODCHARTS, a segment on national television [23] and [24] where a reliable source is calling him one of the "internet's biggest names", a Toronto Star pick, and the multiple non-trivial coverage identified above, just about enough the presume a Keep - particularly if all the sources are combined per WP:BASIC. Furthermore there is secondary coverage in WP:RS interview articles with a depth of preparation, then per WP:INTERVIEW#Notability that bylined coverage may count towards notability. ResonantDis_tortion 12:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The song “Sharing is Caring” charted in British Hip Hop and R&B Singles charts in 2012, but that isn't criteria 2 "national music chart". I don't think "The 50 Funniest Moments of 2012" and Rich Fulcher "media mashups" are particular relevant. The Toronto Star video is more specifically about Lily Allen. IgelRM (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Bull charted on the UK Hip Hop and R&B Singles and Albums Charts, and twice on the UK Independent Singles and Albums Charts; both national charts but speciality as I indicated above; not slamdunk conclusive on their own but a good indication of WP:MBIO nonetheless. There is a biography on laut.de which is trending reliable per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#laut.de. Furthermore Game Informer, which is an WP:VG/RS, has a bylined article calling the subject "the Mike Skinner of video games". There are further coverage in articles such as [25] and [26] and [27]. With all the sources identified above, such as [28] and [29] and [30], coupled with the charting, there does appear sufficient non-trivial coverage to build an article and presume notability. ResonantDis_tortion 22:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why this article is being considered for deletion. Dan Bull has a significant number of YouTube views and listens into the millions on YouTube Music. If we're considering deleting this article there are hundreds, if not thousands, of musicians that could also be considered for deletion. Not having a mainstream media presence, which appears to be the argument here, has no relevance to someone's artistic merit or the merit of them having a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntJack1981 (talk • contribs) — AntJack1981 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- You're welcome to nominate those articles, but please read WP:OSE and N:MUSIC before you do as you have a fundamental misunderstanding of notability which is understandable, but does not make your case. Star Mississippi 12:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect per IgelRM. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

England

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also