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

Lewis Black (businessman)

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

Lack of notability; all sources are about company actibvities not him. TheLongTone (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the opinion that he lacks notability. There are numerous articles covering his views on the tungsten industry, and he also serves as the CEO of Almonty Industries already listed on Wikipedia. For now, I think it would be good to gather more opinions from others and discuss further. Monthlywiki (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, England, Canada, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Black (businessman)

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

Lack of notability; all sources are about company actibvities not him. TheLongTone (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the opinion that he lacks notability. There are numerous articles covering his views on the tungsten industry, and he also serves as the CEO of Almonty Industries already listed on Wikipedia. For now, I think it would be good to gather more opinions from others and discuss further. Monthlywiki (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, England, Canada, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big L 1395

AfDs for this article:

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

Article with insufficient sourcing since 2010 about a radio station that briefly lasted. I am not sure where they are getting the dates of 1955-present. The one source from the Guardian is actually kinda decent but the other two are just press releases so no establishing notability there. Moritoriko (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. Moritoriko (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Netherlands and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for the Study of Human Learning

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

Contains blanks sections, cites no sources. Horse.staple (talk) 08:14, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Poole

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

Non-notable British model. Page has been previously nominated for deletion and moved to draft space. Lacks WP:RSs and fails WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've done a few articles for glamour models, and sourcing is hard to find... I don't see anything for this model, there's a basketball player from the 1990s with this name, but nothing for this particular example of glamour model. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Harris (Silton)

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

Non-notable English soldier and farmer. This is a well presented page and would have taken some time to create, however it would not seem to come close to meeting WP:ANYBIO. Lacks any evidence of notability or WP:RSs and given the historical nature of the subject, would seem incapable of meeting WP:N. Cabrils (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability - genealogy / local history and nothing else. Ingratis (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Island (UK amusement park)

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

Virtually unsourced, with the only non-database source in the article being about court proceedings for a nearby accident and not providing WP:SIGCOV for the park at all.

A WP:BEFORE gives me the Daily Mail, a park of the same name in Essex, and another article about the Essex park. Also a local newspaper which could be interesting if it wasn't just two paragraphs of paraphrasing the placement of a Lincolnshire park in a blog's UK top 10. And another interview in a local newspaper.

Of everything I found, this might be the closest to SIGCOV, but it is heavily quote-based and also from the aforementioned local newspaper. Nothing that makes it look like Fantasy Island is passing WP:GNG, or that it is even the most notable Fantasy Island UK amusement park. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and United Kingdom. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can find this article about the park being bought, but it's fairly routine stuff. Nothing that makes me feel this park is enough to pass GNG, so delete, albeit it is a weak one. CoconutOctopus talk 21:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I think it's probably possible to scrounge up something from the few good sources there are. It might not be comprehensive but it can probably be improved enough to not need to be deleted. I can start working on it. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have rewritten the page based on available sources. I think it's start-class at this point and I don't think it needs to be deleted now. I'm changing my vote from weak keep to keep. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Yang

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

Refs do not pass WP:SIRS, so this does not pass WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression he passed WP:NACTOR, with at least two notable roles (a main role in a miniseries and a lead role in a film + a further upcoming project). However, if I was mistaken, then it's a case of WP:TOSOON and I would support redirecting to Last Days (2025 film) for now. Starklinson (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: Source 8 is a RS, but it's rather thin. Source 12 is also a RS, but isn't just about this individual. Those are all I can find as well... Would likely pass ACTOR, but we need sourcing... Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Connor (gymnast)

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

Mass-created LUGSTUB. Fails WP:NSPORT, no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and United Kingdom. FOARP (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Great Britain at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics Artistic, where his name was mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Oh hey, fancy seeing you here. Let's continue this class reunion and tag in fellow gymnastics aficionados Sirfurboy and JoelleJay. Looks like I beat them to the punch here and they surely wouldn't want to miss out. Now that we have that out of the way, the July 4th, 1898(!) edition of the Birmingham Daily Mail has an article on Page 3 which surely meets WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG or whatever weapons routinely wealded during these conversations. Here's a link to the page, for those that use Newspapers.com. Thanks, GauchoDude (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So clearly one source alone cannot meet GNG, because GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Further, this is a news report of him taking over the directorship of the Birmingham Athletic Institute in a Birmingham local paper. That is a primary source. So, in fact, it cannot be used even as a single source towards GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is routine news coverage of ... announcements. If we were to base the article off this source the page wouldn't even be about his gymnastics career... JoelleJay (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Rotherham

AfDs for this article:

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

PROD'ed by User:NuanceQueen for the following reason;

Subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are no secondary sources available; all the ones linked here are dead links. Article repeats language used on the subject's promotional websites, which suggests WP:BLPCOI issues. A previous WP:PROD was opposed by individuals with a personal connection to the subject who willfully misconstrued Wikipedia's anti-promotional rules. (proposed by NuanceQueen)

Article has previously been at AfD so cannot be Prodded but I wholeheartedly agree with the Prod nomination so listing here as courtesy. CoconutOctopus talk 20:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United Kingdom. CoconutOctopus talk 20:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The last AfD for this article was 17 years ago, and since then little to no references have been added. Madeleine (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a fossil of an article. I'm surprised this stayed up as long as it did. Previous version of the article are weak at best at establishing notability. His IMDB is bare bones with minor roles in non-notable productions. Prior keep votes hinted at coverage online that is no longer searchable. (Now if they had included it in the article after the votes...) Points towards keep would be the director credit for King Lear (1999 film) and a local interest BBC blog post. The former's notability is debatable and a singular local profile would not pass WP:GNG. There are also some listed sources in the article but they are currently dead sources. Based on the headline, I'd posit that they are specifically about the Robin Hood competitions. (e.g. "Robin Hoods do battle with bows"; "Your chance to be Notts hero"). And that would not contribute towards notability. - BriefEdits (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BriefEdits. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 16:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability. I can't add more because there is no more. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Trudgian

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The current sources are primary and all I could find elsewhere were some mentions at [[1]] and [[2]] Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails SPORTCRIT, unable to find anything other than routine coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2000–01 Plymouth Argyle F.C. season as his sole claim to fame (one appearance) and where he is already mentioned. Giant Snowman 15:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with redirecting. Svartner (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG and do not redirect. The search feature would pick up the name anyway. Need to avoid redirects when a player has played for multiple clubs. Govvy (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James P Mahon

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

Refbombed promotion for non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Many sources but most are by him instead of about him. A little bit of local interest puff but nothing significant. Awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, Radio, Television, Sports, Ireland, Romania, England, Scotland, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have decided not to make a specific recommendation here. Yet. As, frankly, I wonder if I can leave aside the years of WP:COI and WP:REFBOMB concerns that I've struggled with on this title. And, perhaps, any !vote contribution from me may not be fully objective. However, I have long wondered whether WP:BASIC and WP:JOURNALIST and WP:NACADEMIC are met here. As, IMO, there is limited evidence that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The sources (in the article and seemingly those that are available) are almost all either written by the subject (some about himself and others just things he has written generally), or by entities associated with the subject (university bio profiles, Huffington Post profile, news employer bio, etc), or are just trivial passing mentions. The only three sources, of which the subject is a primary topic and which are could be considered somewhat independent, are the three pieces in the local Clare Champion newspaper (from 2013, 2021 & 2022). And, personally, I'd question whether these are fully independent. Or whether these types of "local boy graduates" stories materially contribute to notability. Any more than this "former co-worker wrote autobiography" piece is strictly independent. Anyway. If I was confident that years of COI/REFBOMB/FV annoyance with this title weren't influencing my recommendation, I'd probably lean "delete". But, being perfectly frank and hopefully somewhat self-aware, I'm not convinced would be an entirely objective recommendation (based entirely on NBIO merit).... Guliolopez (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a tricky one to try and assess. Ultimately I think notability is not there. There is some coverage but is it significant? I think not. Looking at the academic side, I don't think the research and published works are there yet. The awards are non-notable really and as for the references, most are published own works. It almost feels kind of WP:Auto even if it isn't. Coldupnorth (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trap Lore Ross

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

Obviously AI generated article not in encyclopedic tone. It reads very promotional and puffery. Subject might be notable, but this is not an acceptable article. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the main editors contributions, I see several good articles and even a featured article. Yet, this really reads to me like an obvious example of AI generated text which confuses me. I don't want to accuse a productive and experienced editor of using AI, so I really apologize if that's not the case. Sources are pretty poor and some seem entirely unrelated to the text it describes, like the opinion piece from Defector describing him highly negatively used as a reference on the sentence "His content often delves into the real-life events and legal troubles of musicians, presenting a blend of music journalism and cultural commentary." RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am really not even sure how to address this tbh, but no, it is not AI written. I use grammarly often to sort out better sentences structure. In your defence, someone once told that only AI uses the word "delve". Feel free to check the factuality for each sentence using the inline sources, so you can be sure that: The article does not include hallucinated information or fictitious references. As for copyright violation, use Earwig.

Anyway, AfD are normally based on policies, so you need to indicate in your nom the policy that you think this article is violating. Have a read through Wikipedia:Deletion policy and if you change your mind, you can withdraw the nom.

Also please when you tag an article, it is better to add more details in the page talk so editors know what to fix. Good luck FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the above, and while I will believe you on not writing the entire article with AI, it has the exact same non-encyclopedic tone of AI. If I would ask a LLM to write an article, I would get an indistinguishable result in prose. I do believe the article contains citations that do not match the actual sentences. Another example is the sentence "He also delves into the evolution of hip-hop culture, and the intricate relationships between rap music and broader societal issues" is completely unrelated to the two citations, one which seems to just be a page with an embedded video? If he has covered the evolution of hip-hop culture, the source does not explain it.

I did not explicitly link anything but my reason for nomination is WP:ATD-E "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion". I am not arguing against the notability about this person, only that the quality of the article is so poor that it's not worth keeping in this state, especially considering it's a biography of a living person. RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw when you say “ Another example is the sentence” you know you are talking about the same example?

I replied below to your accusation of fictitious citation. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing by, but Grammarly uses AI now so that is likely why it might appear AI-generated. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources at the end of that sentence says:

“ Up next for TLR ... deep dives into NBA YoungBoy and Quando Rondo. Who knows, there may be one of Boosie too!!!”
“ You don't need to watch more than a few minutes of any of Trap Lore Ross's work to understand the register at which he's operating. “ the article continues to describe what he does

so I am not sure how you are not able to verify the sentence. It doesn’t need to be verbatim or paraphrased from the article. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up two different sentences that do not have truthful citations. I will go through them in detail, since you seem to be confused.

"He also delves into the evolution of hip-hop culture, and the intricate relationships between rap music and broader societal issues."

No source mentions him covering "the evolution of hip-hop culture". It is entirely possible that he has done this, but it's not sourced.

"His content often delves into the real-life events and legal troubles of musicians, presenting a blend of music journalism and cultural commentary."

Indeed, the Defector source has the text "You don't need to watch more than a few minutes of any of Trap Lore Ross's work to understand the register at which he's operating.", but it's preceded and followed by a extremely negative opinion on this person. The source argues that people like him are "provocateurs" and their work is a form of cultural "exploitation". The author is basically arguing that he what he does is more akin to "exploitation" than "cultural commentary". RoseCherry64 (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see GNG, source 2 is a RS, it mentions the person... 5 and 7 are the only other RS, that briefly mention this person, mostly re-quoting TMZ or talking about a documentary this person made. I can't find any sources either, these are all TMZ or other gossip sites. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you looked to the sources in the article and found one is RS and dismissed TMZ? Why? Looking to WP:PRS, it doesn’t not dismiss TMZ + notability is not decided by the sources in the article as the article was not updated since 2024. If you look now all these are sources about the person:

FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TMZ is not a reliable source, low quality at best. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:TMZ&redirect=no. I would prefer a better site. Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In the comments the nominator is not contesting the topic notability but first started by saying the text is AI like, then moved to saying that the prose quality is so bad that the page need to be deleted. Changing the goal post makes this nom really hard to address but going by typical AfD noms:

notability is met in the article and more sources can be found outside the article
accusations of using AI to write the article is not a cause to delete an article (you can take to me to ANI or the village for discussion), and
the prose is excellent, every line is sourced, grammatically sound and the text can be understood.

FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the text is AI like, then moved to saying that the prose quality is so bad that the page need to be deleted"

These mean the same thing. AI-like text is just a specific form of poor prose. I am not moving any goalposts. WP:TNT mentions that articles that could meet notability requirements are routinely deleted for being poor quality such that an entire rewrite from a red link would be preferable to having a blue link.

The prose is not "excellent" (as it reads like AI prose), a text being understandable does not mean that it's encyclopedic in tone. RoseCherry64 (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

which part is not encloypedic, your argument is about style, not susbtance, which not a cause for deletion

Which part of WP:TNT are you alluding to?

To be honest, if you look to the comments no one is paying attention to your nom. Which is good becuase your nom does not have legs. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per lack of reliable sources and what Oaktree b wrote. TMZ is one of those unreliable sources that turn out to be reliable sometimes: it's produced by a guy whose tag line is "I'm a lawyer." AI has its uses. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I don't see any redeeming qualities about this article. This seems like a glorified fan writeup, and it isn't even written by a human's hands. I concur with the comments by Oaktree. Plasticwonder (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Music, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG. The best source here is TMZ, which WP:PRS describes as low-quality. None of the other sources can be used to establish notability.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified Kirkham baby boy

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

While named after a victim this does not meet WP:NVICTIM, and the crime/death does not pass WP:NEVENT. Covered in exclusively local news or WP:BREAKING news. Coverage is not in depth or sustained enough to counter those issues. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and England. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems oddly specific for an article. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@An editor from Mars Alternatively, you could just change the name instead of deleting the article? I was struggling to come up with an article name and ran with this instead. Stadt64 (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You do it dude. I don't know what to suggest as the new title. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA False. It was covered in nationwide news from the BBC (British broadcasting company), the case was featured on a nationwide TV programme called Crimewatch, as well as other nationwide sources such as ITV, Daily Mail [3] and Sky News [4] I'm not even from or live in the UK and I know these to be nationwide and popularly consumed media outlets. Stadt64 (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per reasons stated above. Stadt64 (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, these are all breaking news based either on the case being reopened or the death's initial discovery. Every single missing person case gets that kind of coverage. Per WP:NEVENT we require sustained, in depth coverage from a variety of sources which is not met by a few breaking news pieces with no depth from British press. They have no analysis and so are WP:PRIMARYNEWS, not secondary as is needed for notability. The Daily Mail is one of the least reliable sources ever. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A sad, but unsolved cold case, one of many unfortunately. There's nothing that really makes this one stand out. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A sad piece of history, but it does not meet the standards for inclusion on Wikipedia. Vegantics (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keily Blair

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

Inherited notability from OnlyFans & Blair's positions at the company. While there are good sources surrounding her hiring as CEO, it speaks to a single event in her life. I don't see how this could be anything other than promotional. 30Four (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Law. 30Four (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Ireland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious here, why this one and not Amrapali Gan? Hyperbolick (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great point, I've nominated that one as well. 30Four (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject passes WP:BASIC with multiple sources. Google news search brings up quite a few articles where they are the focus. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject may pass WP:BASIC up front for coverage of her becoming the CEO of OnlyFans, but she does not appear to be notable for any other action. Lots of additional press appears to stem from actions of the company as a whole or interviews with her. Could you post the articles you feel best represent her notability, aside from OnlyFans? 30Four (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 3 and 4 are ok, 7 is an interview. More than enough coverage for a CEO of one of the largest websites on the planet, notability is shown. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:ONEEVENT - Only notability comes as CEO of OnlyFans. Source 3 and 4 only talk about her as CEO and background only because of that. Source 7 is some random awards-giving non-profit.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 23:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the article was created by a paid editor user:AG at OnlyFans; so as CEO running the company, she paid one of her employees to create this page for her.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 23:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding COI notice to article ApexParagon (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OnlyFans, where she and her role in the company are mentioned. ApexParagon (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fail to see the relevance of WP:ONEEVENT here. Being the CEO of a major company is not an "event". If someone meets WP:GNG because they have attracted coverage for holding a notable position or role, that doesn't affect their notability in the slightest. Most of our article subjects have "inherited" their notability from some kind of position for which they have received coverage (e.g. footballers, politicians, musicians), so I have no clue why a CEO should be treated differently. I agree with Oaktree b that sources 3 and 4 provide significant coverage of Blair herself and are sufficient to meet GNG. There's also this article in the South China Morning Post, which is a bit weirdly written but is still a bylined article in a reliable source, and this in Fortune. I think she easily meets GNG. MCE89 (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:BASIC with significant coverage in independent reliable sources including in The New Statesman [5], Fortune (magazine) [6], Variety (magazine) [7], and this by Reuters in American newspapers [8]/[9] (not yet in article). WP:BIO1E does not apply if coverage is sustained over time, which it is here. Article could use some editing but subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Nnev66 (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Jennings

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

Non-notable footballer who appears to fail WP:SPORTCRIT. Unable to find any significant coverage, and the sources in the article are WP:ROUTINE match reports and transfer announcements. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Bickerton

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

I could not find any evidence that this is a notable musician, seems to be a self-published artist who hasn't received significant attention from reliable sources so far. Fram (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Fram (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true if you search and read about Alucidnation which is his Allias, you will find alot of refernces and articles about him. he has also appeared on the Grand Theft Auto IV game sound track. i have seen many articles on Wikipedia about music producers who hardly have any credbility compared to this producer. please do your research. i also have added more links to this producer. Manunited20 (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you identify better sources and add them to the article to demonstrate the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria. As a general rule at least WP:THREE are recommended. To assist - I have identified two EP reviews from a reliable source (Muzik): 2001 and 2003. There is also an Irish Times album review on ProQuest 309867414. I !vote Draftify as there is potential here. ResonantDis_tortion 15:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for assisting, i have added the sources on the discography of the artist. if you can identify more reliable sources and help edit the page in any way, that would be appreciated. Manunited20 (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mornflake

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

Delete – The article reads more like a promotional piece than an encyclopedic entry. It provides minimal historical or critical context and instead focuses on listing products in a commercial tone. The references cited are either passing mentions or are not independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. There is no evidence that Mornflake has received substantial attention in independent publications to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. In its current form, the article fails to justify its inclusion on Wikipedia. Unless substantial independent sourcing is found, deletion is appropriate.

I have transcluded and formatted this AfD discussion initiated by User:GlenluceRoadLoser. I have no opinion at this time. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and United Kingdom. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Norman, Paul (2016-08-12). "Mornflake Go! high protein porridge review". Cycling Weekly. Archived from the original on 2025-05-27. Retrieved 2025-05-27.
  The review notes: "The Mornflake Go! high protein porridge is aimed at the physically active who want to get a protein boost with their breakfast porridge. It’s made of oat flakes supplemented with 12% soya protein. This ups its protein content to 21% from around 12% for standard porridge oats. So when made up with milk a serving gives you 14 grams of protein along with 26g of carbs – almost as much as many recovery bars and around 30% of the reference protein intake for an average adult. Being made with soya protein, Go! Is suitable for vegetarians too."
2. Howle, Nigel (2025-05-12). "Morning Foods: 350 years of a family food business". Cheshire Life. Newsquest. Archived from the original on 2025-05-27. Retrieved 2025-05-27.
  The article notes: "Morning Foods, best known by its brand name Mornflake, has been a part of the fabric of life in Cheshire since miller William Lea set up business in the village of Swettenham in the 17th century. ... Mornflake’s story is one of innovation and service. It has ridden a rollercoaster of breakfast food fads and trends and now stands strong as a great British brand exporting to 80 countries."
3. Price, Richard; Saunders, Ethan (2025-02-10). "Cereal firm marks 350 years of making breakfasts". BBC. Archived from the original on 2025-05-27. Retrieved 2025-05-27.
  The article notes: "Breakfast cereal firm Mornflake is planning a range of initiatives to celebrate its 350th anniversary. The company, based in Crewe, Cheshire, is a family-run business dating back to 1675 and currently employing more than 300 people. ... The company was founded by William Lea, who began milling oats at Swettenham Mill, 10 miles away from its current headquarters, just nine years after the Great Fire of London. It is now run by John Lea, the fifteenth generation of his family to oversee the business."
4. "Mornflake". CNBC. 2014-11-03. Archived from the original on 2025-05-27. Retrieved 2025-05-27.
  The article notes: "Since 1675, 15 generations have succeeded William Lea to grow this business from its humble milling roots in Cheshire, England, to today’s company, which was founded in the 1940s, employs 370 people and reported a turnover of £146 million in 2014. Mornflake produces a range of oat based products including muesli, granola and porridge, and exports all over the world."
5. Gill, Oliver; Woolfson, Daniel; Boland, Hannah (2023-01-21). "Waitrose pulls Mornflake porridge from its shelves after 50 years". The Daily Telegraph. EBSCOhost 8Q3184878332. ProQuest 2767528704. Archived from the original on 2025-04-18. Retrieved 2025-05-27.
  The article notes: "Waitrose has withdrawn a porridge brand made by one of Britain's oldest companies, as the upmarket supermarket reduces the number of products on its shelves amid the cost of living crisis. ... Cheshire-based Mornflake was founded by Philip Lea and is still family-owned 15 generations later. It claims to be the country's fourth oldest company."
6. Callan, Scott (2020-09-08). "Great British Inspiration Mornflake goes live on TV". Cheshire Independent. Archived from the original on 2025-05-27. Retrieved 2025-05-27.
  The aritcle notes: "Millions of viewers are waking up to Mornflake as part of a national TV advertising campaign celebrating the food producer’s historic roots in Cheshire and expertise as millers. ITV adverts, running throughout September, feature three 20-second cinematic film clips telling the story of how the family firm, the fourth oldest in the country, grows and crafts oat-based cereal products loved by consumers worldwide."
7. Clay, Xanthe (2023-01-28). "I tried 22 granolas to find the best value for money – here's my verdict". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-06-21. Retrieved 2025-05-27.
  The article notes: "Contains lots of nice-looking things including raisins and pumpkin seeds but the few pale clumps there are aren’t crunchy; it’s more of a muesli texture. Not sweet, with a slightly bitter aftertaste."
8. Hurley, Paul (2019). A-Z of Crewe: Places-People-History. Stroud: Amberley Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4456-9507-5. Retrieved 2025-05-27 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Here we have a company that has existed in Crewe for many years. In fact fourteen generations of the Lea family have been milling oats in Cheshire since 1675. Morning Foods is one of the oldest companies in Great Britain and is still in the same family. The current managing director is John Lea, and Mornflake is a subsidiary. The Mornflake brand was introduced by the Lea family in 1942 during the dark days of the Second World War. Now grain from all over the UK is used in their products, and they are, as well as in the UK, exported across the world."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Mornflake to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – While Mornflake may be a long-standing brand, the article does not meet the threshold of notability as defined by Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. The argument to "keep" relies on sources that, when examined, fail to demonstrate significant independent coverage beyond passing mentions, routine business reporting, or product reviews. Let's review the sources cited in the "keep" rationale:

Cycling Weekly (2016) – This is a product review of "Mornflake Go!," not in-depth reporting about the company. Reviews of individual consumer products do not establish notability for the brand as a whole. See WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTCATALOG.

Cheshire Life (2025) – A regional lifestyle piece focused on a company anniversary. While it adds local historical color, this type of coverage is largely promotional and lacks the depth and independence required by WP:SIGCOV.

BBC (2025) – A short, routine write-up about the company marking 350 years. While the BBC is a reliable source, the article does not offer deep critical analysis or sustained coverage beyond the milestone event. It's closer to a press release in tone.

CNBC (2014) – This article contradicts other sources on the company’s founding date and again repeats uncritical corporate claims. It does not provide the kind of analytical depth or independent investigation that demonstrates notability.

Daily Telegraph (2023) – The article discusses Waitrose delisting Mornflake among other brands as part of a broader strategy. Mornflake is mentioned, but the focus is on Waitrose. This is a passing mention at best, per WP:TRIVIAL.

Cheshire Independent (2020) – Merely notes a paid television advertisement campaign. Coverage of paid media buys does not confer notability, as it can be purchased by any entity with a marketing budget. See WP:NOTPROMO.

Daily Telegraph (2023) – Another product review, this time of granola. Reviews, especially when the product is not the main focus, are insufficient to establish notability.

A-Z of Crewe (2019) – A local-interest book with very limited distribution and factual inconsistencies (such as conflicting founding dates) further weakens the case.

Moreover, the article contains a list of products, which reads like a brand catalogue, violating WP:NOTDIR and suggesting a lack of encyclopedic tone. The presence of a family-run business, longevity, and a presence in local or trade publications do not alone meet the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia.

In conclusion, the Mornflake article lacks significant and independent coverage that goes beyond routine mentions, press-like features, or product reviews.

It fails to meet the criteria at WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Recommend deletion. GlenluceRoadLoser (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joni Ayton-Kent

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

A young actor making her way on stage and in film, but yet to break through with starring roles in major productions. There are many citations, but these support the a play or film, and Ayton-Kent isn't the focus of them. WP:TOOSOON. Klbrain (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough good roles for NACTOR. As Jo Eaton-Kent they had a significant role in The Watch ("But Eaton-Kent is excellent and the character works on their own terms." Lloyd, Robert (5 January 2021), "The colorful world of 'The Watch'", Los Angeles Times) and in Don't Forget the Driver [10]. Also on stage in A Christmas Carol: A Ghost Story [11] (As Joni Ayton-Kent in the televised version [12]). On stage Treasure Island panto got multiple reviews ("Although every character’s performance was terrific, Joni Ayton-Kent's performance of four characters stood out for me." Lloyd, Robert (7 December 2022), "Hall for Cornwall's Christmas pantomime Treasure Island is 'ansome!", Falmouth Packet. "while Joni Ayton-Kent is an inspired (and quietly revolutionary) choice for the joint female leads of Billie Bones and Benji Gunn, getting the crowd involved with some lung-busting Freddie Mercury-inspired 'day-ohs'." Trewhela, Lee (12 December 2022), "Treasure Island - the panto that's still not quite a panto with Cornwall as its star - When In The Ghetto is rewritten as In The Kernow, you know you're in panto land", CornwallLive.) Prince also got multiple reviews (Iftikhar, Asyia (21 September 2022), "The Prince review: Abigail Thorn's debut play reinvents Shakespeare with a queer, trans twist", Pink News. Gaian, Kestral (20 September 2022), "The Prince review; Abigail Thorn's wonderful debut as playwright", Trans Writes. Marcolina, Cindy (20 September 2022), "Review: THE PRINCE, Southwark Playhouse", Broadway World.) The Welsh debut of Revolt. She Said. Revolt Again. aslo got coverage and they played a major role. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bletchley Park Museum

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

New page created a couple of weeks ago:

a clear WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Bletchley Park given the very large overlap in the content (entire paragraphs, section headings...)
the title (capital 'M') implies that there is an organisation called "Bletchley Park Museum", but as far as I can see this is neither an official name nor a WP:CommonName – the museum is simply named "Bletchley Park"
the title fails WP:Criteria because it's not clear to the reader what the difference in remit between the new article and the existing Bletchley Park article would be (as evidenced by the fact that the 2 articles need hatnotes to try to explain it)

I think this was intended as a WP:Spinoff, but for the reasons above I don't think it works as one, and if Bletchley Park is too long it would be better to use summary style. I mentioned all this last week at Talk:Bletchley Park#Splitting article to Bletchley Park Museum and got no response. Given there might be a lot of work to unpick the split from subsequent edits, it would be good to find a consensus before anyone does any more work either way. Joe D (t) 13:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and History. Joe D (t) 13:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've asked @Steinsky to withdraw this on the talk page for Bletchley Park as a good faith measure as I did not see the notification there last week. That's the better place for that discussion. The article was created so that the details around Bletchley Park could be separated from those around the site and the museum trust. A summary style wouldn't work as a lot of information would be lost. As Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, the better alternative would be splitting the Bletchley Park Museum article - which has taken the hydra like quality of the pre-split Bletchley Park article, into constituent articles for things like the trust, the country house aspects, the human interest aspects, etc. But that discussion is better for the article itself (and I promise that if I'm tagged I will endeavor to answer, although I'm on holiday so give a couple of days) and come on here if there isn't consensus in the article. 13:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JASpencer (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note There's discussion on the Bletchley Park article that isn't reflected on this page. (1) there is strong opposition on the page from long standing editors to remerging the two articles and (2) the nominator has expressed willingness to withdraw the nomination while this gets flashed out on the Bletchley Park talk page. JASpencer (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Knight

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

Not significantly covered in reliable sources. BEFORE searches only turned up results for unrelated people that also happened to be called “Oliver Knight”, not this person. This article is also quite problematic for a BLP (large amount of unsourced info, unsourced quotations, etc.) ApexParagon (talk) 03:41, 25 May 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)} 08:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards Keep. A quick search identified several reliable sources covering the subject, his collaborations and his solo works. I have added several of these citations to the article. Article needs work but AfD is not cleanup. ResonantDis_tortion 12:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give links to some of these sources? ApexParagon (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat myself, the newly found citations are in the article; Oliver Knight#References. ResonantDis_tortion 04:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the worst of the copyright and BLP violations, but I'm still not sure one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve AJ Broad

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

Non-notable biography of a developer. The 'biography' is constructed mostly from stringing together primary sources being the database entries of the developer's games. There isn't as I see it much reliable secondary information or coverage provided on who this developer is, what their background is, and much beyond that their name is attached to these titles. One exception is the mention of a Retro Gamer interview that is WP:OFFLINE. Even if the developer's body of work had significant coverage - which it doesn't - the article unfortunately contradicts the general principle that notability for one topic is not generally inherited from the notability of its subtopics - there's just not enough about Broad himself here to warrant an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a bunch of WP:Original research with Spectrum Computing refs. Delete. IgelRM (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the details that you have noted. So far, I have only been able to provide a string of references to reliable sources to create this page. Obviously, over time, I would be adding more as I find it to cover more information about Broad. So far, I have found 35 reliable references that I have linked. This is more than many pages on Wikipedia, and I believe there is enough information stored at all the sources to warrant a page on Wikipedia. Broad has a long standing in the games writing industry where he has supported the retro gaming community, that has become increasingly popular in recent years. There are not enough pWikiaedia pges referencing the gaming history pioneers. A page of this nature does take time to develop.

Many thanks! Wiper2001 (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate, with respect, reliable sources giving rise to notability are generally not primary sources. Other than Retro Gamer, the article's prose is strung together from inferences made about the creator pretty much only from listing all of his games, none of which seem independently notable. There has to be significant coverage from secondary sources to warrant a biographical article about someone. This is just a list of games. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is where Wikipedia fails when those sources are not available currently but may be in the future. I am surprised that the urge to simply delete the whole page is the only item on the agenda. No options to move it anywhere have been mentioned. Just simply nominate for deletion because there are not enough secondary sources. The page has only been online for a week and these things usually build up over time. I guess it will be deleted because not enough time is given to develop it. Wiper2001 (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Hudson (musician)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, is solely dependent upon primary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:54, 24 May 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)} 10:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are a few mentions ([13], [14], [15]) but lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Good nom. 38.85.166.137 (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was going to advocate for draftifying, but at the moment there just isn't enough coverage to justify it. Vegantics (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fiduciam

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

Not notable. Almost all sources are self published, & I can't find anything better. TheLongTone (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edited! Please let me know if you want to add further sources. ChristosTrap (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not sure what has happened to much of the content of the article - looks like it has been replaced by code. In any case, I don't think the references demonstrate notability. Some are passing mentions of the firm, and others read like press releases. Looks like WP:MILL. Tacyarg (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Æbbingas

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

It's not clear what this article is supposed to be about. It would appear from the title that it was about an Anglo-Saxon tribe, like the Beormingas or the Snotingas, but no such tribe is mentioned in the text. Instead, we get a short history of the place-name Abingdon, largely copied from the Abingdon-on-Thames article. Furthermore, it does not seem that there was ever actually a tribe by this name. I could not find any usage of Æbbingas outside Wikipedia. Zacwill (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources for the name Abingdon do not mention Æbbingas at all, so it's not at all clear where the name has come from, or what it refers to (if anything). The earlier forms of the name Abingdon that the second source gives are Abbendune and Abbendon. Is the name Æbbingas in the Tribal Hidage? It's not clear to me what the source of the list of Anglian-Jutish-Saxonian tribes in List of early Germanic peoples#Possible ethnolinguistic kinship#West Germanic peoples is; the Tribal Hidage article includes an image of an old publication of the list of names, which does not include Æbbingas. I hope some experts will contribute. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Wareham Forest fire

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

fire not notable enough for an article, doesn't meet WP:NEVENT and had minor impacts compared to other much larger UK wildfires which do not have articles harrz ^talk 21:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. harrz ^talk 21:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mill Hill, Blackburn with Darwen

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

Run-of-the-mill suburb with no indication of notability. Database source only. Could redirect to Blackburn. — Moriwen (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: needs work but it meets the criteria of WP:GEOLAND (it has been a matter of debate in the past whether UK electoral wards fit the "officially recognised place" criterion, but in this case couple it with plenty of historic and contemporary coverage and I think it clearly meets the other criteria anyway). I think that under WP:ENGPLACE it should probably be moved to Mill Hill, Lancashire? Joe D (t) 16:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin, Blackburn

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

Run-of-the-mill suburb with no independent administration and no indication of notability. Database source only; nothing better available on search. Could redirect to Blackburn. — Moriwen (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Effectively unreferenced, no indication of notability. A redirect is probably fine. Mackensen (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Clarke (footgolf)

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

Non-notable footgolf player. The article was AI-generated and included multiple hallucinated citations that have been removed. What's left doesn't support notability under WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT; references are affiliated with him (his Facebook or his talent agency), or they are from official leagues and thus also not secondary coverage. I found one instance of WP:SIGCOV in my before search (Daily Record), but the rest of the coverage I found was WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If this page is ultimately deleted, I would like to request userification so I can continue working on it in my userspace. Thank you.
Wq4m820 (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with work) - Some independent coverage exists, Gulf Today (2023 Sharjah win), GolfNews Vietnam (2025 Vietnam Open), ITV News Meridian (UK team victory), and Hemel Today (2017 Player of the Year), but most is event-specific. May fall short of WP:GNG due to limited sustained, in-depth WP:SIGCOV. Wq4m820 (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Today is a single mention, GolfNews Vietnam appears to be routine match coverage, ITV is a trivial mention, and the Hemel Today piece appears to be a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE based solely on an interview with Clarke (and I would question the independence of an article that ends The Berkhamsted man is looking for help with sponsorship. If you can assist, email bencl***@gmail.com. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a FIFA.com piece on him -- this WP:SIGCOV and * source helps meet WP:NATHLETE (under WP:NSPORT) notability requirement of 'one significant, independent source' for the Ben Clarke (footgolf) page Wq4m820 (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take One (British magazine)

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

Non notable magazine. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Websites, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage found for this magazine. Sourcing now in the article is primary and non-RS. Nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen D. Martin

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

Doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Regarding his medical career, scopus shows 9 publications with an H-index of 9, with most of the citations coming from mid-authorship papers. For example, on his most highly-cited paper (Meltzer et al., 2003) he is one of 88 authors, and is listed only in the trialist, not in the main authors (checking the pdf). Visiting professorship at the University of Sunderland in the 90s doesn't meet the 'named chair' criterion. Other outputs seem typical for a typical academic in the humanities. LTLC flute is very impressive, but performance interpretation/outputs are supported only with self-citations. Klbrain (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, History, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I am having trouble checking his publications; Scopus is often too low. That said, at least two in the page look like comments or just abstracts, plus the claims in the page do not seem to merit consideration as notable.Ldm1954 (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that Scopus is lower than some counts because it has stricter quality standards for citing papers ... that makes it more reliable. Klbrain (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - verifiably false: lots of people have taught college courses across the curricula. I've taught over 20 different college-level courses, including paralegal studies, criminal justice, administrative, and AP Biology. My sister has taught everything from architecture to art history, at much more prestigious universities. This is balderdash. WP:SALT. Bearian (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the sources. I believe he really did a second PhD. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not seeing any articles that establish notability. Almost all are primary sources or self written.Goodboyjj (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Bown

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am looking for sources and info on his stage performances. The article states that he was a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company for 3 years, and appeared in a play on the West End, so there are probably reviews and more info about his roles that can be added. I don't think there is enough info in the article yet to say that he is not notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just scrapes through now, I feel. I too will look for more sources. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will create and add a table of his stage performances, with sources including reviews. His roles include playing Lennox in Macbeth with the Royal Shakespeare Company (with Ian McKellen as Macbeth and Judi Dench as Lady Macbeth) in Stratford-upon-Avon at the The Other Place, the Young Vic in London, and in the filmed version Macbeth (1979 film); and playing Biff Loman in Death of a Salesman with the Oxford Playhouse company. He definitely meets WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Slaughter

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

Subject fails NPOL and sources are insufficient to satisfy the requirements for GNG (independent, reliable, and substantial coverage). Some are interviews (not even with the subject), while others are election results from unsuccessful candidacy. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United Kingdom, England, and Wales. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the discussion, my argument for keeping the article as is, is as follows:

In the NPOL guidelines under the subheading Politicians and judges, it includes politicians who are quote "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Further in this point's explanatory note (8) it states "...A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Slaughter as a local Welsh politician has indeed gained independent news feature stories about him. Here are links to several of them:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-50368944

https://nation.cymru/news/anthony-slaughter-re-elected-as-leader-of-wales-green-party/

https://www.penarthtimes.co.uk/news/10945089.penarths-anthony-slaughter-elected-deputy-leader-of-welsh-green-party/

Further here are two articles BBC News articles whereby he is mentioned in passing because he is the leader of the Wales Green Party (non-feature articles):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-56644323

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2520dndy6o

Best, Flare Flarehayr (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Leader of a significant political party. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless Link

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

I'm unable to find sufficient secondary sourcing for WP:NORG. Of the sourcing in the article, it's almost entirely primary. The only secondary sources are [16] and [17], neither of which provide sigcov on the org. Though it seems like their research is decently well-cited [18], I can't find any secondary sigcov sources. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reviewing the page.

I have made improvements to the article, in particular finding new secondary sources with adequate coverage of the charity. Roughly half of the sources used in the article are now secondary.

If it is still deemed that the article is lacking in secondary sources, perhaps a fair resolution to this would be to change the 'Article for deletion' template to a 'Primary sources' template?

Thank you very much. Rob235711 (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Fazackarley

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

Article about a ceremonial mayor, not properly referenced as having any serious claim to passing WP:NPOL. As always, British mayors of the "everybody on council gets to be mayor for a year instead of being generally elected to the position" type are not inherently notable enough for Wikipedia just for being mayors per se -- they can qualify for articles if they can be shown as the subject of enough WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable media sources to pass WP:NPOL #2, but are not automatically entitled to have articles just for existing. But this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- nine of the ten footnotes were self-published by the city council itself, and the other one is a directory entry -- with not a single reliable or GNG-building piece of media coverage shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He's been a councilor for a long time and as a result, there's a lot of local news coverage in the newspaper. There's been occasional national coverage, but it's all pretty in passing. I find this kind of article frustrating, because I would tend to include them. We could redirect to List of mayors of Portsmouth Jahaza (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while it's common for political biographies to have a lot of primary sources, this is too much. Lacks significant coverage in secondary sources. I'm not opposed to a redirect, as suggested, in this and similar cases. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Young Freemen

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

Subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (per WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRITE). Current citations are almost entirely routine or minor mentions, many of them in publications by related institutions. Paul W (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Keep

I oppose deletion. The Guild of Young Freemen article meets both the General Notability Guideline (GNG) and WP:ORGCRITE for organizational notability.

1. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources

The Guild has been featured in respected publications beyond trivial mention, including:

Financial Times, referring to it as a “popular association” among City Freemen.

The Times, which has photographed and referenced Guild members during livery events.

BBC, which includes the Guild in Lord Mayor’s Show coverage.

City Matters, the City of London’s newspaper of record, with multiple pieces highlighting the Guild’s involvement in civic life (Sheep Drive, Pancake Race, inter-livery charity work).

The Field magazine — one of the oldest hobby and sporting publications in the UK — has mentioned the Guild alongside other historic Livery Companies in its coverage of City traditions.

2. Public civic role

The Guild plays a formal part in the annual Lord Mayor’s Show, where its members escort the traditional figures of Gog and Magog. It was founded in 1976 by the City of London Corporation to engage younger Freemen. Recently, it entered a long-term partnership with the St John Eye Hospital Group, reflecting its charitable mission and continuing relevance.

3. Notable alumni and impact

The Guild has served as a launchpad for individuals who have gone on to serve the City, such as:

William Hunt, founding member and later Windsor Herald of Arms.

Alastair King, current Alderman and Lord Mayor of London (2024–25), who serves as the Guild’s patron.

Several Common Councilmen and civic figures who identify as alumni or close affiliates.

The Guild also works with livery companies on public events and charitable activities, reinforcing its embedded role in City life.

4. On par with comparable articles

There are other Wikipedia articles on City institutions like the City Livery Club and Guild of Freemen, some of which have less sourcing or less civic visibility. The Guild of Young Freemen is no less notable than these examples. Deletion would be inconsistent with how other comparable pages are treated.

5. Good-faith editing and room for improvement

The article was drafted by me (under the username ReclaimEC1) as part of a journalistic initiative to improve coverage of overlooked but historically relevant civic bodies in the City of London. I acknowledge there may be tone issues, but these can easily be corrected through collaborative editing. I intend to expand documentation on other underrepresented Livery Companies and Common Councillors across Wikipedia.

Conclusion

The Guild of Young Freemen is notable, historically rooted, publicly active, and covered by multiple independent, high-quality sources. It deserves to remain on Wikipedia. Improvements should be made through editing—not deletion. ReclaimEC1 (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it has significant coverage in independent reliable sources", please cite them.

I did a Google search for news items, and found nothing significant.
The BBC Lord Mayor's Show coverage is passing mentions. It does not focus on the Guild. Participation in a big event does not make the Guild notable
The 'launchpad' argument is spurious - per WP:INHERIT.
'Comparable articles' argument is irrelevant and unconvincing - per WP:OTHERSTUFF.
Sorry, but WP:HARDWORK is no reason to retain a subject that fails GNG.

I note a draft article on the same subject also exists - Draft:Guild of Young Freemen - maybe focus on improving that to the point that it is acceptable.

I also note your intention "to expand documentation on other underrepresented Livery Companies and Common Councillors". This would be welcomed, so long as the subjects meet GNG, ORGCRITE and NPOL - several of the recently created Common Councillor articles do not meet the latter criteria and have been nominated for deletion.

Paul W (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Paul W, for your thoughtful engagement. I appreciate the scrutiny, and I agree we should hold all content to GNG and related standards.

Re: your question on significant coverage — here are some independent, reliable sources that reference the Guild of Young Freemen in more than a passing way:

The Times (18 May 2015): Announcement of the appointment of a new Master of the Guild. This was printed in the announcements section — a public record of officer appointments in civic institutions.

BBC: While BBC coverage of the Lord Mayor’s Show often highlights the overall event, the Guild appears in broadcast footage as escorts of Gog and Magog (e.g. BBC London News, 13 Nov 2021). Though mentioned briefly, the Guild’s official role is confirmed independently on the Lord Mayor’s Show website, which states:

“The giant willow figures… are escorted by the Guild of Young Freemen, founded by the Corporation to encourage participation of young Liverymen in the affairs and traditions of the City.”

The Feltmaker (Worshipful Company of Feltmakers): A 2022 issue notes the Guild led participants across London Bridge during the Sheep Drive, confirming their ceremonial role beyond internal mentions.

Range Magazine (15 May 2025): The latest issue includes a feature on the Guild, discussing its history, civic involvement, and charitable work, including partnerships with Livery Companies and the St John Eye Hospital Group.

These references collectively meet GNG by showing significant, independent, and non-trivial coverage. They demonstrate the Guild’s consistent involvement in high-profile civic traditions and charity, backed by third-party sources.

As for the draft — yes, I only noticed it afterward. But since the live page already exists (not created by me), it makes sense to improve it rather than duplicate work. I’m happy to help merge, edit, or polish content as needed.

Lastly, thank you again for taking an interest. I genuinely hope you’ll consider helping improve these articles with me rather than proposing deletions — we’re all here to expand access to accurate, verifiable information, especially about historic institutions that are often overlooked. Constructive collaboration always makes the project stronger.

Referenced Links

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/archive/article/2015-05-18/12/0.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-59266028

https://lordmayorsshow.london/2023/procession

https://www.feltmakers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Feltmaker-2022.pdf

Range Magazine (15 May 2025 – print only; article available upon request or via City libraries) ReclaimEC1 (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot comment in detail on the Times mention (paywalled) or Range Magazine (though both sound to be the result of Guild PR/marketing, which may render the coverage unreliable). The Lord Mayor's Show mention is not really independent (there is a clear connection between the Show and the Guild). The Feltmakers link is broken, but I intuited it might be the 2022 magazine - there is a passing mention (but not significant coverage). If you see fit, please edit the article (there may be additional sources in the Draft article) so that other editors can take a view. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you interesting conversation, I appreciate the help and tips and have begun making changes. I thank all who are working on this together. Miceofbankstation (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (yet I will cycle back to see if better sources have been found). I have not found any independent sources that are substantially about this guild. Most of the sources here are announcements of events that merely name the guild but say nothing about it. That is not sufficient for notability. I'm not sure how to assess the sources from other guilds, but none are substantial (mainly name-checks or single sentences) so it doesn't really matter. A few of the sources here do not mention the guild at all -- such as the St John one. I did searches in The Guardian but found no mention, in spite of a (dead) link here. Lamona (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The Guild of Young Freemen meets Wikipedia’s general notability guideline (WP:GNG) and the criteria for organizations (WP:ORG). It has received significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources beyond trivial or routine mentions. For instance:

The Guild’s origins and civic purpose are documented by the Guildhall Historical Association, describing its foundation in 1976 under the auspices of then-Lord Mayor Sir Robin Gillett to engage young people in City affairs.
The Lord Mayor’s Show website, an independent resource, identifies the Guild as an official participant, historically escorting Gog and Magog—demonstrating long-standing ceremonial involvement.
External charitable organizations such as St John Eye Hospital Group have acknowledged and publicized the Guild’s multi-year charitable partnerships, reinforcing its activity and recognition beyond internal City institutions.

These sources demonstrate verifiability, institutional relevance, and sustained activity in the public realm. While improvements in tone or additional inline citations may be warranted, this does not negate the article’s validity. Per WP:ATD, issues of style should be addressed through editing, not deletion.

Given its historical significance, coverage by independent sources, and its embeddedness in City of London tradition, the article satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Recommend retention.

–– Miceofbankstation (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Windsor Residents Association

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

This neighborhood association and quasi-political group with two affiliated members on a local English borough council does not pass WP:NORG or even WP:GNG. Most of the sources here are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, and the secondary sources that exist (here or in a WP:BEFORE search) are merely WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the organization, not WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to mention that there also exists an article for the Old Windsor Residents Association. It is a very similar organisation to WWRA: they are both residents associations with two members on the same council, and have received a similar amount of coverage in local media. So, it would make sense to either keep both or delete both, as they have effectively the same level of notability. Infinite Hydra (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL, or in the alternative, redirect to an appropriate target. I'm all for neighborhood associations - I was secretary of mine in Albany, New York, for several years. But there's no assertion of notability. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep mainly because I suspect that the reasons given for deletion so far are probably based on transatlantic misunderstanding? I don't think a UK RA (political party) is quite the same thing as a North American neighbourhood association? Certainly this one is little different to the rest of Category:Locally based political parties in England – most of those also need some work, but I don't think the news coverage of their borough council contributions fits the trivial mentions criteria. Joe D (t) 15:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it should be treated as a political party, what sources can you show that offer WP:SIGCOV? I haven't found any, and anything that is said to pass WP:GNG requires that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seats in a local council do not mean that it is notable. Can't find sigcov. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Birdsall

AfDs for this article:

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

Not satisfied he meets WP:NAUTHOR as his work has not been widely reviewed (the best I found was a 1996 review of his first book in Kirkus). Search his name and you quickly run into other people called Ben Birdsall, so I'm not convinced he meets the WP:GNG criteria either.

The article was also created by a single purpose account that is very likely to be the man himself, hence the chunks of text that are uncited. In other words, this is a poorly sourced promo. Leonstojka (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - tagged as 'artist' due to painting career Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Leadbetter, Russell (2016-06-10). "Whisky galore! Or: one man's distillery tour on a 50cc Vespa". The Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-05-12. Retrieved 2025-05-12.
  The review notes: "Ben Birdsall arrived on his loaded-up Vespa on Jura and met a couple of strangers sitting outside a hotel. ... West Yorkshire-born Birdsall had many such encounters on his Vespa-borne travels round Arran, Kintyre, Islay, Jura, Mull, Skye, the west and central Highlands, Speyside and, finally, the east Highlands and Orkney. He has now poured his writings, photographs and paintings of that trip into a rather nice book. ... Birdsall, who is 49, lives with his wife and daughter in Winterthur, a city in the Swiss canton of Zurich, where he teaches English "and paint and write in my spare time". Having written a book about his travels round Tuscany by Vespa, he originally envisaged his Scottish project as a painting trip with a few distilleries thrown in, but the idea gradually evolved in favour of the distilleries."
2. Deering, Paul (1995-07-19). "How Sligo roots inspired novelist". The Sligo Champion. p. 21. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "A young Englishman of Irish descent who has links with Dromore West has had his first novel, set in Connemara published. Indeed, for author Ben Birdsall (28) it was the beauty of the West of Ireland and his summer and Christmas holidays spent here that drew him to put pen to paper. ... His novel, Blue Charm, is published by Blackstaff and is the story of one man's renewal through the joys, strangeness and humour of country life. Charged with the hidden rhythms and resonances of a fading Gaelic way of life, the novel catches a twilight society poised between a haunted past and an unsteady future. ... While the main character has an interest in art, so too has Ben, so much so that painting plays just as big a part in his life as writing. ... After leaving Durham University, Ben spent some years working on his uncle's farm in the Dromore West area but in the last two years he has been living in Tuscany, Italy, studying the Renaissance artists and painting their landscapes. ... Writing is certainly in the Birdsall blood. Ben's father, James has published two successful volumes of memoirs ... Timothy Birdsall, Ben's uncle, reached fame through his cartoon ... Ben's early writing career had a bit of a chequered history. In 1985 while a pupil at Sedbergh School, Cumbria, his play The Happiest Days the story of a revolt in a boys' school was banned before it was due to be performed on Open Day on the grounds that it was unsuitable for parents. A year later, Ben began reading English Literature at Durham University and his first attempt at a novel, The Wanderings of a Buadno-Marxist, was published in the student magazine."
3. DD (1995-09-24). "What lies between the covers". Sunday Tribune. p. 20. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  This is a book review of Blue Charm by Ben Birdsall published by The Blackstaff Press. The review notes: "This may be the worst book on Ireland ever written. What condemns it is not the mistaken belief that the quality of the writing can disguise the absence of a plot; it is not Birdsall's conceit that he is accurately representing a little piece of Ireland; it is, rather, the brass neck of the publishers in thinking that they can pass off such a blatant piece of Paddywhackery as literature that really gets up the nose. When Birdsall confines himself to descriptions of nature or places he is quite a nice writer. However he is determined to make quite a large section of people in the West fit the faith and begorrah, fairy-believing cliche so beloved of much of the English middle-classes. ... Blue Charm is a joke, made worse by Birdsall's patronising treatment of the people to whom he purports to be strongly attached."
4. Relich, Mario (1987-08-28). "Festival Review: Around the Fringe". The Scotsman. p. 9. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The review notes: "Staggart Lane: Collingwood Catdaddy Codpieces. This meandering new play by Ben Birdsall, an undergraduate from Durham University, has some very effective moments. There can be no doubt, as well, that the playwright shows great potential, but the smarties handed out to the audience at Masonic Lodge, Hill Street were easier to digest than the to find life meaningless, and therefore recklessly waste it. This theme is explored through an anti-hero who has problems with drugs. But he is prevented from facing what has made him an addict in the first place by officiously well-meaning do gooders who queue up to save him. These include, among others, an aerobic Christian, and an implacable Buddhist—both richly comic cameo roles."
5. "Festival date for Yorks playwright". Telegraph & Argus. 1987-08-27. Archived from the original on 2025-05-12. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Edinburgh's famous Fringe Festival will next week be the venue of a new play by young Keighley writer Ben Birdsall. The play, Staggart Lane will be performed at the festival renowned as an outlet for new theatrical talents from August 24 to 29 at the Masonic Lodge Theatre. Now at Durham University, Ben, of Cross Hills, was a pupil at South Craven School before going to Sedburgh."
6. "Author is nominated for literary award". Craven Herald & Pioneer. 1996-04-19. Archived from the original on 2025-05-12. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The first novel by Cross Hills writer Ben Birdsall has been nominated for a top literary prize. Blue Charm is one of five books shortlisted for the Author's Club First Novel Award. The prize is given annually to the writer of the most promising first novel published in the United Kingdom. ... Educated at Glusburn and South Craven Schools and later at Sedbergh, Ben gained a BA Hons degree in English language and literature at Durham University. Being of Anglo-Irish origin, he returns regularly to his family home in County Sligo, and has formed a deep attachment to the West of Ireland and its peo-ple. Indeed, his novel Blue Charm is based in County Galway."
7. "Cross Hills: Author was thwarted during 'Happiest Days' but now he is in print at last. Novel success for Ben". Telegraph & Argus. 1995-07-21. Archived from the original on 2025-05-12. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "It is ten years since Ben Birdsall's first attempt at writing was thwarted by cautious teachers at his school. His play The Happiest Days, which told the story of a revolt in a boys' school, was banned from performance at Sedbergh School, North Yorkshire, because it was felt to be unsuitable for parents. Now the Keighley author is celebrating seeing his first novel in print. Blue Charm, which paints a vivid picture of life in Connemara, Ireland, has just been published by Belfast-based Blackstaff Press. ... His literary interest grew at Durham University where he read English Literature. His first attempt at a novel — The Wanderings of a Buddho-Marxist — was published in extracts in the student magazine Inprint. In his last year at Durham he wrote a dissertation on his own work."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ben Birdsall to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First AFD nomination was delete. This second time, notability is still not established with the sources available. Many of these look like promotion or announcements. I don't think this is enough for notability or for a stand alone article. Plus much of the page is WP:OR which means someone close or even the subject may be writing their own biographical details. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 20:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's source analysis and my own reading of the articles I could access. Unfortunately, 3 others are in the British Newspaper Archive and my Wikipedia Library access to that site has expired. Perhaps another editor has access to these articles? That said, references behind paywalls count just as much as free articles. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are going to offer an argument, please evaluate the sources presented in the article and in the discussion. We don't want to make a closure based on impressions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet NAUTH:

he is not "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited". Most sources are primarily small, local papers (Sligo Champion, Telegraph and Argus, Charlston Mercury. (The latter appears to be very informal, and without paid writers.)) Two of the reviews blast him (see above) which indicates that he is not considered a serious author.
Nor, as per criterion 3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I can see one independent source (The Herald). The #2 reference in the article is 1) an interview and 2) by the organization that published his book. And there is no indication that this is considered a "significant body of work."
The festival date article is not significant, and he was nominated for an award but did not win.
While much is often made of GNG when some sources are found, the policy is: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6] This policy does not say that if sources are found the subject is automatically notable. We need to analyze what the sources are telling us, and in this case I conclude that not even the cumulation of the sources adds up to notability. Lamona (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers:

The Sligo Champion has been around for 189 years and the Telegraph & Argus for 157.
The Scotsman (Edinburgh) and The Herald (Glasgow) are well-known across Scotland.
The Sunday Tribune (Dublin) was important in its day.

Big or small, all of these newspapers are (or were) reliable, independent sources with editorial supervision.

The Notability (people) guideline says WP:NAUTHOR is an alternative means of qualifying as notable; authors are not required to meet it. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria:

"Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria states:

"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability"

Negative reviews do not count against notability. Even Hemingway and Joyce got some negative reviews; probably Dante back in his day, too. -- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the article history. Created and mainly edited by a WP:SPA, so probably either himself or a paid editor. What I see here is a mediocre writer trying to use Wikipedia for WP:PROMO. And, funny thing, that editor is User:Wormtub67 and (I know this is a stretch but not out of the bounds of possibility) Birdsall's year of birth is '67. As for the newspapers, I didn't say they weren't reliable. I do say that being written up in a source that reaches a small (by my standards) community isn't enough. If he'd gotten a review in The Times or The Guardian then I would see notability. Oh, and Hemingway and Joyce got (and still get) positive reviews and academic treatment, and are pronounced as cultural titans. Maybe if we wait 50 years this guy will be in the canon of literature, but I for one would not put money on it. Lamona (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Kiley

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

Non-notable musical theatre actor. There are online reviews for a few things he has been featured in (for example, a Jack and the Beanstalk pantomime), but most results are just passing mentions in casting annoucements etc - there was also an article he wrote for The Independent about Alan Turing getting put on a new banknote.

In other words, no significant secondary coverage. Leonstojka (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: what does GSA in the article stand for? Bearian (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Guildford School of Acting I think Leonstojka (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at weak keep at this moment. I did a fair amount of editing of the article and added more recent information along with references. So far I have found one solid review and other brief ones. He seems to be mainly doing musical theater now, and I will keep looking for sources. There are more sources that could feed into the article in the sense of comments by reviewers, if that would help. I'd like to hear what others think at this point, before I put more time in. Lamona (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial career, decent media coverage. Llajwa (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musfiq Mannan Choudhury

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

Mostly passing mentions in sources and he isn't a highly-cited researcher ([19]). It does note he is a vice-chancellor of a university, but this institution doesn't seem particularly noteworthy or reputable (although perhaps someone who knows more about the regulation of higher ed. in Bangladesh can correct me) Leonstojka (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bangladesh. Leonstojka (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is daddy (Abdul Mannan Choudhury) who is the vice-chancellor. The article was created in good faith, but has subsequently attracted unwelcome editing from single purpose accounts that appear to have a close connection to him. If the article is kept, it will need watchers. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is not a highly-cited researcher, but after reading the article, it seems it passed GNG because he has coverage in Bangladeshi newspapers. Somajyoti ✉ 20:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had a look at the Bangladeshi coverage (Daily Star, Daily Sun etc) before making the nomination and it was generally routine announcements and brief mentions. However, there was a story published today where the article subject has a more significant role; whether this is enough to justify preserving the article, or if the info should instead be entered elsewhere, I'll leave for others to determine. I imagine this discussion will probably get relisted. Leonstojka (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mehzeb Chowdhury

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

Other than the sheer obnoxiousness of this article (which is just one long advert about why the subject is the most awesome and interesting man in the world), I'm not totally convinced it meets the notability criteria. Reasons below:

Many of the sources are just passing mentions, and they aren't always high quality (e.g. a casting website is used to support the claim he is an actor/filmmaker)
A previous editor has marked the article as relying too heavily on sources that may be closely related to the subject. I happen to agree, and the generally sycophantic nature of these articles is off-putting and undermines the case for notability (given his father is a prominent journalist, I wonder if he has some connections with The Daily Star, which is one of the main sources)
The big notability claim is his association with MABMAT, and while that is notable, I'm not sure it justifies Chowdhury having an article to himself. Furthermore, this article seems to credit Chowdhury as the sole inventor, whereas The Times was more balanced, indicating he led a team at Durham University that developed it [20]
As a researcher he has a low h-index [21]
An excessive number of claims rely on primary sources. A few claims aren't even verified (e.g. that he worked for Goal.com as a correspondent) Leonstojka (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Journalism, Law, Social science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (creator) The nomination is strictly reliant on issues regarding the article. Issues regarding an article can be raised in its talk page or Wikiprojects' talk pages (I do agree it needs some touch, and I'm willing to do them once able, but that's irrelevant to an article's notability).
Just because an article is not up to the mark on some aspects, it does not become non-notable. Many of the sources are just passing mentions- not every source of an article need to be of high quality or of depth. An article fo shizz will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims.
There exist several sources (in Bengali as well) in and out of the article that definitely speak volume for this person's notability. X (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'An article fo shizz will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims' – Sure, but if we're establishing general notability it is best to have more than passing mentions, because lots of people are sometimes contacted by the media to provide comment for stories. I also have concerns about the promotional nature of some of the Bangladeshi sources (e.g. this one), which read like adulatory press releases. Leonstojka (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has enough RS about the subject (Wired, Digital trends, HuffPost, The Times) to pass WP:NBIO. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are more features that are not cited in the article as well, such as this from Ice Today. There's coverage in Bengali too, with TV appearances, features in reputed mags such as The Diplomat and Newsweek where he is introduced as an expert. Overall, why'd a non-notable person get recurrent coverage throughout the years from big pubs. X (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Xoak is right. Somajyoti ✉ 20:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is clear by the sources. Mifflefunt 03:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Striking !vote of blocked account who was here just to spam porn sites. MarioGom (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Which sources establish notability under WP:GNG? Is it this one from Business Standard? what else? I see many articles written by the subject, but I don't see reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has refs from Wired, Digital trends, HuffPost and The Times, which are independent RS. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the articles in The Times and Wired use Chowdhury as a source (as in "Chowdhury says", "he believes", "he told", "according to him"). What he says is not independent of him. Similarly, Digital Trends is an interview with him, so not independent of him. If they consulted any other sources, they don't say so. HuffPost does not contain significant coverage of him. None of these four do anything to help establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce, These 4 aren't the only sources. Many sources exist about this individual (see the aforementioned points). A non-notable person does not get recurrent media coverage throughout the years (it may well be interviews, passing mentions, anything; he does have sig in-depth cov as well for the record). X (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at making a source assessment table. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Ice Today https://icetoday.net/2024/03/building-blockbusters/	~ Not sure how to rate independence.	~ Not sure on reliability of this.	700 words about subject	~ Partial
Business Standard https://www.tbsnews.net/features/pursuit/he-modernised-crime-scene-investigation-making-movies-and-music-along-way-487946	~ Not sure how to rate independence: asked in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-ActivelyDisinterested-20250516114100-PacificDepths-20250516083000	~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional?	Entire article is about subject.	~ Partial
Daily Star https://www.thedailystar.net/entertainment/tv-film/news/mehzeb-chowdhury-pioneer-criminology-savant-films-3147896	~ Some interview quotes. Not sure how to rate independence.	~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional?	Entire article is about subject.	~ Partial
Prothom Alo https://www.prothomalo.com/lifestyle/5uuxkcz9qu	~ Some interview quotes. Not sure how to rate independence.	~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional?	Entire article is about subject.	~ Partial
The Diplomat https://thediplomat.com/2024/08/can-the-bangladesh-police-recover/	Mostly an interview, primary source material	~ unknown	One sentence description of subject	✘ No
Newsweek https://www.newsweek.com/body-farms-decomposing-bodies-forensic-science-murder-1798397	Mostly an interview, primary source material	~ Treat case by case basis per WP:NEWSWEEK	one sentence description and quote	✘ No
Jamuna TV Plus Interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8x8r90VZE4	Interview: Primary source	~		✘ No
Wired https://www.wired.com/story/crime-scene-technology/	Interview		Little information about the subject	✘ No
The Times: "Robots will create virtual crime scenes for juries"	Primary source		One sentence about the subject	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

@PacificDepths Simply discarding sources labeled as "interviews" is flawed. These are features that include quotations and interview segments, as features inherently contain such elements. You cannot broadly dismiss them by merely labeling them as interviews. Claiming they "feel promotional" is your subjective opinion (these features have proper bylines and are not promo pieces, if so, they'd have been designated as such from these reputed pubs). Overall, I strongly disagree with this source analysis table. Additionally, several Bengali news sources, TV appearances, and passing mentions in reputable publications recognize him as a notable person or expert. Collectively, these demonstrate his notability. GNG is fo shizzle met here. X (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, common sense should prevail. The newsweek and diplomat sources were mentioned to demonstrate a point that this person also gets called out for their expert opinion, assessing and labeling these 2 as "One sentence description of subject" is utterly asinine, like of course these are passing mentions. And as I stated earlier, not every source of an article need to be entirely about the subject or of depth. An article will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims. X (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-ordered the sources and edited some. I'm not sure how to judge Business Standard, Daily Star, ICE Today. I don't think The Times should demonstrate notability. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PacificDepths, and those who are unfamiliar, TBS, DS, Prothom Alo, Ice Today, these all are reputed and generally deemed reliable publications. X (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While numerically, there are more editors arguing to Keep this article I don't find their arguments compelling. We need more editors reviewing and commenting on the source analysis which is a strong argument for Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kudos to PacificDepths for doing a source assessment. The set of sources cited has changed a little since then. Two thirds of the sources are written by Chowdhury or are passing mentions of him. For the remainder, I'll try to expand on PacificDepths' work and resolve some of the "maybe" entries. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Worldbruce
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Business Standard https://www.tbsnews.net/features/pursuit/he-modernised-crime-scene-investigation-making-movies-and-music-along-way-487946	Interview, primary source. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 477#Business Standard Bangladesh tbsnews.net.		Entire article is about subject	✘ No
The Daily Star https://www.thedailystar.net/entertainment/tv-film/news/mehzeb-chowdhury-pioneer-criminology-savant-films-3147896	Interview, primary source		Entire article is about subject	✘ No
Prothom Alo https://www.prothomalo.com/lifestyle/5uuxkcz9qu	Interview, primary source		Entire article is about subject	✘ No
The Times https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/robots-will-create-virtual-crime-scenes-for-juries-636pmm986	Uses Chowdhury as a source ("Chowdhury says", "he believes")		One sentence identification	✘ No
Newsweek https://www.newsweek.com/body-farms-decomposing-bodies-forensic-science-murder-1798397	Quotations of Chowdhury, primary source	~ Treat case by case basis per WP:NEWSWEEK	One sentence identification	✘ No
The Daily Star https://www.thedailystar.net/supplements/32nd-anniversary/where-showbiz-meets-the-internet/news/working-behind-the-scenes-hollywood-3247811	Interview, primary source			✘ No
Digital Trends https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/vr-crime-scene-robot/	Chowdhury talking about Chowdhury			✘ No
HuffPost https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/5-industries-virtual-reality_b_13338798				✘ No
Wired https://www.wired.com/story/crime-scene-technology/	Uses Chowdhury as a source ("Chowdhury says", "he told", "according to him")		One sentence identification	✘ No
The Daily Star https://www.thedailystar.net/sports/football/news/chowdhury-appointed-advisory-group-newcastle-utd-3367306	Press release, identical wording in multiple Bangladeshi newspapers			✘ No
Dhaka Tribune https://archive.dhakatribune.com/showtime/2018/02/20/megalithic-unearth-the-unnamed-february-23	~ No byline, almost certainly a press release			~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete Despite the large number of sources, there are no sources that are both independent and that contain significant coverage of him. Every source of substance is Chowdhury talking about Chowdhury. The sources repeat what he says uncritically, and without bringing in any other views. Publishers evidently can't find anyone with anything to say about him other than him - no colleague who has read the chapter he wrote, no viewer of his 1-minute film, no listener to his album, etc. Self-promotion is not the route to notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to the article's other top ten (by edits or added text) non-bot registered editors, as concerned editors: (Bearcat—Caeciliusinhorto-public—David notMD—Diannaa—GoingBatty—HeyElliott—MrsSnoozyTurtle—R'n'B) --Worldbruce (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: I'm shocked that I'm in the top 10 for this article, but apparently adding categories and DEFAULTSORT plus tweaking references two years ago gets me there. While I have no desire to review the 34 references in the article, it would be nice if @X: would add the references they mentioned to the article. GoingBatty (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm apparently in the top 10 by virtue of having edited this article once (to fix an ambiguous link). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I stand by my previous remarks. While one can nitpick the individual sources, common sense should prevail. X (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re the source table done by Worldbruce, I'd have to repeat myself here. Simply discarding sources labeled as "interviews" is flawed. These are features that include quotations and interview segments, as features inherently contain such elements. You cannot broadly dismiss them by merely labeling them as interviews. Claiming they "feel promotional" is your subjective opinion (these features have proper bylines and are not promo pieces, if so, they'd have been designated as such from these reputed pubs). Additionally, several Bengali news sources, TV appearances, and passing mentions in reputable publications recognize him as a notable person or expert. Collectively, these demonstrate his notability. GNG is fo shizzle met here.
And by the way, common sense should prevail. Some sources are added to demonstrate a point that this person also gets called out for their expert opinion, assessing and labeling these as "One sentence identification" is utterly asinine, like of course these are passing mentions. And as I stated earlier, not every source of an article need to be entirely about the subject or of depth. An article will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims. X (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re @GoingBatty, here are two prominent features previously not present in the article, this from prothomalo, this from Ice today. There are multiple news pieces in Bengali as well which are not sources in the article.

Once again I'd have to respectfully retort myself, collectively, all the sources (of depth and the otw) speak for this person's notability who has been recurrently getting media coverage for a decade now. They are called for their opinions and introduced as an expert in those "passing mentions" as well, along with tv coverage, in combination with the full-fledged features from multiple reputed pubs -- all these warrant GNG here. Why'd a non-notable person get recurrent coverage, all thanks to "self promo?" And the film or music stuff are their side gigs, not the talking point of their notability. They are mainly notable for their invention, as well-being an expert in criminology, also more recently they got some coverage on being an adviser to Newcastle United. X (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'They are mainly notable for their invention'

Right, this is one of the reasons for the nomination I addressed above. It is arguably the strongest claim, but it seems more like a justification for the MABMAT rather than Chowdhury himself. And there isn't enough evidence that his work as a criminologist strengthens his notability claim e.g. not that many citations, no major awards, has not been chief editor of a major journal and so on.

Why'd a non-notable person get recurrent coverage, all thanks to "self promo?"

Well, I suppose if Chowdhury is a skilled networker who is good at leveraging connections with media in Bangladesh. That can't be proven of course, but it's the somewhat obsequious nature of his coverage that raises an eyebrow and makes me wonder (as other users have noted) how independent of Chowdhury these sources really are. I found it very interesting that when I searched for the Newcastle Utd independent advisory group, the first mentions were disproportionately reports of Chowdhury getting appointed from Bangladeshi publications, whereas the other members of this group were much harder to identify and their role did not generate any press attention. Why is that? Leonstojka (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep Many of the sources are borderline in terms of independence, but there are a lot of them: it isn't a situation where we only have two sources and both of them are dubious, we're talking in the double digits here, across publications and continents. Interviews can be promotional, but if the interview is done by an independent outlet and it includes at least some independent commentary by written by the article author or journalist, then I think that's enough for SIGCOV purposes. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 18:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allin Kempthorne

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

I've AFD'd this, but actually I think it should be redirected to Wriggler (video game). There doesn't appear to be any independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage to the subject of this article. Sourcing is all tabloid news (The Mirror, The Sun, Metro) or passing mentions. Simply appearing on BGT (and not being recognised...) does not indicate notability. Simply being a bit-part actor in numerous films does not indicate notability. Additionally I have WP:PROMO/WP:COI concerns here.

They wrote the ZX Spectrum game Wriggler together with their twin when they were at school, and this game is clearly notable, but nothing else they have done appears to be notable.

Also nominating The Vampires of Bloody Island for deletion (no need to redirect this), which is the film Allin Kempthorne created. The only coverage that could be found for this is blatantly promotional ("we were forced to bring forward the release of this film because of an email campaign that no-one but us is the source for existing") and from sources of dubious reliability. Simply being nominated for a Twitter Shorty Award does not indicate notability.

Similarly also Learning Hebrew for the same reasons.FOARP (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Businesspeople, and Video games. FOARP (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Magic, Television, Entertainment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable, concurring per nom. IgelRM (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IgelRM@MimirIsSmart - Also redirect for the two films? Or delete? FOARP (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't make sense to redirect film article to a game. I would say Delete but this combined AFD is a bit confusing. IgelRM (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nom with WP:NPOV disputed and as for the the next one, since it exists, redirect to a suitable one since Allin's does meet neutrality and COI as suggested or keep if there are more sources. I will suggest we keep one worthy, I will work on it and find sourcs to redirect others to newly edited one per WP:ATD as one can argue WP:TOOSOON.
HilssaMansen19 (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no mention of Wriggler anywhere in the article, or any sources for it, so it's not a legitimate redirect term. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, are you criticizing that Kempthorne involvement in Wriggler isn't sourced well? IgelRM (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think what @Ritchie333 is trying to say is that, since Wriggler isn't even mentioned in the current article on Kempthorne, it's a WP:ASTONISH issue for anyone looking for info on Kempthorne. I'm inclined to agree. Anyone who searches for "Allin Kempthorne" will still be able to find Wriggler (video game) in the search results, they just won't be automatically directed there. -- asilvering (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but then I could just add a mention of Wriggler to the article now and defeat the argument? However, I'm fine with Delete as the game doesn't appear particularly relevant to the person's career. IgelRM (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because there are three articles under review, I think this needs more eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

England

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also