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

Gabriel Kanter-Webber

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

Article has been created by the subject in WP:AUTO violation, and does not appear to meet notability criteria under WP:N. All subsequent attempts to improve article with recent news coverage by other accounts has resulted in immediate reversion and somewhat disingenuous edit summaries to cover this. I acknowledge that most of this news coverage has been negative due to subject's terminally online behaviour and one must have regard for WP:BLP, but if this coverage cannot be included then I do not see what this article is for. I added a recent 2024 news story that received coverage in most British Jewish media outlets, and was reverted within six minutes despite the editor not using Wikipedia for anything other than gatekeeping this bio.

I am not convinced that subject is notable, but defer to consensus - if the article is retained then subject should be banned from editing it so a more comprehensive article can naturally develop. Dev920 23:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this article should be kept. I am not the subject, and I edit a range of articles connected to Brighton and its history and people. For instance I also created the article on Julian Crampton and I can’t be him as well! This article on the rabbi meets the notability rule because it contains multiple sources discussing the rabbi, his work and career. Brightonheritage (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Kapoor

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previous nominated and deleted. It was then recreated. However the issue still seems to be there. Cannot find independent significant coverage about the person himself to indicate he is anything more than a run-of-the-MILL CEO. Imcdc Contact 06:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Computing, India, and United States of America. Imcdc Contact 06:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Did not find any sources that indicate significant coverage about the individual. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rajasthan, England, Australia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Taylor

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:BIO and more specifically, I don't think any of the criteria in WP:AUTHOR are made out. Article as it is currently written has WP:NPOV issues, seems like WP:PROMO, and has had an orange WP:GNG tag at the top for nearly ten years, so I'm inclined to delete on TNT grounds even if my brief search for other notability failed me. Flip^and Flopped ツ 01:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Macdonald (scientist)

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

Fails WP:SIRS and so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has anyone seen if he passes one of the criteria for WP:PROF? The Prof Test is an alternative method of showing notability, so please ping me. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a young professor who has just gotten an under-40 years old award. The "extensive coverage" of his work is the newspaper reports generated from a single University of Cambridge press release. He appears to have only that single paper in Google scholar, which has mixed him up with a Canadian business professor. It is too soon for him to have an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Pictorial

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:NFILM / WP:GNG. No obvious WP:ATD. No sources. Boleyn (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This aerial photography firm whose photographer was Cyril Murrell, produced an important series of photographs of England, Scotland and Wales across twenty years of work. Photographic works by Aero Pictorial / Cyril Murrell are held in numerous notable permanent collections. I have improved the article, adding sources and eight notable collections that include Aero's photographs including the New York Public Library^[1]; Canmore National Record of the Historic Environment^[2]; National Collection of Aerial Photography, Historic Environment Scotland^[3]^[4]; University of Cambridge^[5]; Newcastle University^[6]; Amgueddfa Cymru (Museum Wales)^[7]; National Trust Collections^[8]; Surrey History Centre^[9] Netherzone (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Netherzone's extensive analysis and the correctness of the analysis. Since these photographs are exhibited in many museum collections they easily meet both GNG and the visual arts criteria for notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Aero Pictorial, Ltd. English, active 1930s-1950s". New York Public Library. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
^ "Aero Pictorial". Canmore National Record of the Historic Environment. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
^ "National Collection of Aerial Photography". Historic Environment Scotland. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
^ "Newsletter - Winter 2014" (PDF). National Collection of Aerial Photography Newsletter. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
^ "Aero Pictorial Ltd". University of Cambridge. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
^ "Aerofilms and Aero Pictorial Limited". Newcastle University. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
^ "Aerofilms and Aer Pictorial Limited". Museum Wales. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
^ "Aero Pictorials Ltd". National Trust Collections. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
^ "Redhill Aerodrome, 1953". The National Archives/Surrey History Center. Retrieved 10 April 2025.

The Suggestibles

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

A comedy group that improvises musicals. It's an uncited biography of living people, which failed speedy in 2007 for lack of independent reliable sources, so I'm going through this process. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Theatre, and United Kingdom. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like they still exist according to their website[1] but the only coverage they've received is an interview on a local website in 2019[2]. Unless better sources can be found, they don't meet wp:gng. Orange sticker (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MILL improv group with very little press coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: limited amount of mentions in Gnews above, but sourcing is lacking. We simply don't have enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of hits with sustained secondary coverage available via Proquest, including bylined article in a national newspaper stating this group is one of the "hottest comedy tickets in the north-east". See for example: Guardian, 2007, Evening Chronicle 2004, Journal 2010, Northern Echo 2011. ResonantDis_tortion 09:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, can you drop a couple of more things we can draw from these articles. I still figuring out the best way to find sources for free, and your source isn't free showing me only a preview :). The only things I got are: "Newcastle-based" and one source says they are in-demand. LastJabberwocky (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Hi @LastJabberwocky You can get free access to a variety of databases, including Proquest, via the Wikipedia Library. You need 500 edits and to have had an account for 6 months: Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library. As well as Proquest it also includes access to the Gale database, which also has hits for the subject, such as this one providing bylined commentary on the popularity of the subject's performances. ResonantDis_tortion 11:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added several of these sources to the article, so it is no longer unreferenced. This includes a further sigcov article, archived here. Article still needs work. ResonantDis_tortion 15:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for spending your time on a random article! Do you think the cited sentences would be enough for a servable article; and delete the rest. I assume you scanned all the internet and nothing else would be cited if you will not cite it :). LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I did a minimum level of analysis to ensure the article is no longer uncited. Please make no further assumptions. For the record, there are so many hits on proquest, ranging from bylined coverage to pure listings, that it's a non-trivial job to trawl through and work out what text can and can't be cited. ResonantDis_tortion 18:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even with new sources provided, which were human interest stories about local artists, these two improv performers still do not meet notability guidelines, certainly not WP:ENT, making "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they do have a dedicated article in a national UK newspaper the Guardian already referenced in the article as well as multiple regional newspaper coverage so I believe they pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue (band)

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

English band. The usual things about lack of sources. The first link is broken (thehornstalbans.co.uk). Marked for lack of notability since 2011. LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, no sources anywhere ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication found the subject meets any aspect of WP:MUSICBIO. ResonantDis_tortion 22:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Wilton

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In response to the recent PROD nomination, I had a look at the sources. It seems quite possible that the name "Richardus de Wilton" or suchlike was an artefact, suggested by some misunderstood manuscript material. So I was happy to see the PROD stand. I deprecate the further business of bringing the matter up at AfD. There may be some less obvious source that validates Wilton, and there is no need to make the deletion emphatic. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Philosophy, History, and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in the Wye Valley

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

Fails WP:NLIST, completely uncited (which in itself isn't a reason for deletion, but NLIST makes up for that). E_F⁵ 14:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, England, and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Feel it would be better to convert into a navbox. /over.throws/^✎ 15:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For some rivers/valleys it is easy to source the set of places connected to them. I could not source this particular one. Ironically, a lot of the sources are about "nature" and "outdoors" and "countryside", and going walkabout for approximately 200km. They speak of churches, pubs, and paths; rather than towns and villages. Not even William Gilpin has a coherent list that I could find. What little we could do in this regard is already organically grown by mentions in the Wye Valley and Wye Valley Walk articles. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intec Digital

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

Although I'm on the fence, I don't think this organization meets GNG. Of the four sources listed, two are unreliable (i.e., Facebook and Discogs) and one lacks SIGCOV (i.e., DJ Mag). I found an interview in Vice [3] with a paragraph about the company, as well as post at EDM House Network [4], though that could be a press release. Further, this article has been tagged for notability concerns since 2017 with few efforts at improvement. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carl Cox. The nomination doesn't give a particularly good sense that this should have been sent to AfD; the nominator isn't strongly in favor of deletion and doesn't mention WP:MUSIC despite this being a music-related topic (it's only referred to as a company, rather than a record label). Many, many AfDs of record labels are label imprints of notable musical artists, and this one is no exception; I'm not sure that there's sufficient reason for a standalone article here, but mentioning it in connection with Cox's other artistic output makes sense. In general, these should be proposed as merges rather than sent to AfD; there's no reason to have a redlink here. Chubbles (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melendez Films

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

lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the article primarily relies on self-published or promotional sources and does not demonstrate a lasting impact, it would not meet Wikipedia’s verifiability and neutrality standards. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Comics and animation, England, Mexico, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bill Melendez. The article can very well be merged into Bill's page since the company was his. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jamjarcars

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

lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the article primarily relies on self-published sources or promotional content, it would violate Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability standards. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, There is nothing notable about this brand, fails WP:SIGCOV, Non notable brand Best Regards (CP) 08:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Websites, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed. I can see some passing mentions in trade journals, but no significant coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment searching for jamjar.com may be (slightly) more fruitful. The company was (one of ?) the first online car sales platforms in the (UK|world). 25 years on and most of that online history is lost. The mass of television advertising that was pervasive around the turn of the millennium has vanished. The notability of the first iteration of the business was not maintained by any of the later iterations. Cabayi (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even on YT I could only find youtu . be / UtjJzeO3KVs - Cabayi (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with NatWest Group: they've owned part of the business, could be a brief section under the main business' article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of SIGCOV, kind of on the fence with SIGCOV, since a lot of the coverage from the new millennium has disappeared. There is a possible COI and PROMO issue however. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaplan Law School

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

Article about a defunct for-profit UK legal training centre lacking reliable, third party sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Primarily a puff piece designed to promote the (now non-existent) organization. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as a section of Nottingham Law School, for which it provided some services, and with which its degrees were affiliated. BD2412 T 18:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per BD2412. Flip^and Flopped ツ 01:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively and redirect. Bearian (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nicholas

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

After reviewing the article it came to my attention that the person this article is about does not meet the notability criteria for creative professionals since:

- There is no readily available evidence to suggest that Anna Nicholas is widely cited by her peers or successors, or that she is considered an "important figure" within the broader literary community.

- It is unlikely that Anna Nicholas has originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique within the literary field. Her work, while potentially popular, does not appear to have revolutionized or significantly altered literary practices.

-While Anna Nicholas has published books, it is questionable whether these works have been the "primary subject" of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" that meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. Simply having reviews or mentions is insufficient; the reviews must be substantial and from reputable sources. It must be demonstrated that the books have had a significant cultural impact.

- There is no evidence to suggest that Anna Nicholas's works have achieved any of these criteria. Her books do not appear to have become "significant monuments," been part of significant exhibitions, received exceptional critical attention, or been included in notable gallery or museum collections. Fatimald (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and United Kingdom. Fatimald (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interestingly there is a recent review of one of her books in the Telegraph[5] but also two recent bylines[6][7] so this cannot be considered an independent source. Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR and article is largely unchanged from the one she herself originally created 17 years ago. Orange sticker (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Travel and tourism, Spain, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find the Telegraph review used in the article, not enough to meet AUTHOR. With one or two more book reviews we should have AUTHOR notability, but I don't see any. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bentley

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

Article on CEO of an aviation services company which reads like a resume. References are links to his company website, collated company info by cbinsights, an industry paper about his company completing a training session, and a document by the FAA - none of which are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Page has already been PRODd in the past. Spacepine (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable business person. Orange sticker (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ferrer

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

Non-notable person. Doesn't meet WP:GNG because none of the sources discuss him as a person, but simply mention his job title and/or are articles writrten by him. The man himself has not received significant coverage. Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. Doesn't meat WP:ANYBIO. Amisom (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Judaism, England, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find any significant discussion about the subject in all of the references. Those passing mentions are not enough to pass for WP:ANYBIO. Mekomo (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Foster

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

No sign of notability, search returns nothing. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Radio, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Have added two references but the article still needs additional references.

Lewis Alexander

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

Hijacked redirect. Current subject does not meet WP:GNG. If kept, should be moved to Lewis Alexander (actor) and the redirect turned into a dab. But I can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are people less notable than him who have articles. So, I don't see why it should be deleted and I don't think it needs to be moved since the name isn't taken by someone else. Spectritus (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We discuss articles and if they should be included according to Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. Your reply is unrelated to any of those, so please consider making a policy-based argument. Geschichte (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an extra who does not seem to have ever been credited, cannot find anything about his career or even an obituary, therefore does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Orange sticker (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any solid sources that actually talk about Lewis Alexander as a person or actor. Right now, this looks more like a name on a list than a subject with encyclopedic value. Pridemanty (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
restore redirect to Lewis Grandison Alexander. The actor is non notable, but the poet probably is. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does appearing in major productions not make him notable? Also, there are people less notable than him who have an article. Spectritus (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bilton

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

Article was created by a sockpuppet account named "Novonium", since blocked indefinitely, in 2012. The article appears to have a pretty rich editing history by socks, also since blocked, in the years following its creation. There is a strong WP:DENY argument to be made alone for deleting this article.

Additionally, most of the sources mention Nick Bilton in passing or refer to works of his but are not about the man himself. Therefore, though articles about some of Bilton's work might be notable, the subject matter BLP, Bilton, is himself not notable and the article should be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, England, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some reviews of his books [8], [9], an article in Variety [10]. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Source 10 is also a book review, this would likely pass AUTHOR with at least three book reviews in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the WP:DENY rationale for deletion? I think it is likely that this person paid to have their article created, or did it themselves with a sock account. Either way, it has a rich history of editing by blocked sock accounts. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:DIRECTOR/WP:CREATIVE as director/writer of a notable film, at least. -Mushy Yank. 18:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the criteria from those qualifies here? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...#3, most evidently. Bilton’s Fake Famous has received a lot of critical attention. Just check. WP: AUTHOR also applies. He is a very clearly notable writer and filmmaker. -Mushy Yank. 08:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts on WP:DENY given the rich history of editing by socks and the fact that this article was created by a sock itself? I say delete and it could maybe then be recreated separately on that basis alone. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

House of Fine Art

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

Was deleted back 2018, with a "The" in the title, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The House of Fine Art. Justlettersandnumbers's rationale from back then still holds. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Museums and libraries, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, placing "The" in front of the article name does not suddenly make an article notable. It was not notable when deleted in 2018, and remains so today after a google search. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's nice of Onel5969 to draw attention to my nomination of this for deletion in 2018 (thank you, 1L!). However, what stands out in that discussion is not my small contribution but the clear understanding of policy shown by two editors, Jytdog and NitinMlk. I encourage those who plan to contribute to this discussion to read through the previous one first. The new article seems to be a borderline WP:G4 candidate, by the way, but probably best to let this run now that it has started. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a speedy delete per WP:G4 would make sense, but I think it is looking like it will be deleted anyway if the current trend on this AfD holds. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. It seems this gallery was not notable in 2018 and is still not notable. The sources consist of a short Forbes contributor PR piece on the gallery; the KIAF Seoul pieces is a modified press release; ArtNet is a subscription service for galleries and their listings, their "reviews" are not the same as serious art magazines and besides, it's a dead 404 link; The first Financial Times source is an article about NFT's with a mention of HOFA in one sentence, it is not an article about the gallery; the second FT source is about the artists, not about the gallery itself. Netherzone (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't read the FT refs, don't have a subscription; I've removed artnet as a perennial non-WP:RS. The other three refs do not begin to show notability as expected for WP:NCORP: I see nothing to suggest that vipnews.gr is reliable (no imprint/about us/other indication of editorial control); the Forbes ref is a lifestyle blog post; and the KIAF Seoul ref is a press-release, which presumably they're hosting because the gallery had a booth there in 2022. I'm really curious about the assertion that it was "one of the first art galleries to offer its collection in the form of cryptocurrency", cited to the Alan Knox Financial Times ref: how exactly did that work? – you bought a painting or sculpture, and got given a bit of bitcoin instead? I seriously doubt that the FT says anything of the sort, but – as before – can't access it to be sure. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Justlettersandnumbers, I'm also not sure how NFTs and bitcoin work in tandem in the art world, but the Financial Times article only says this about the gallery: “Viale really resonates with the millennial generation,” says Elio D’Anna, co-founder of Artcels, the online art investment platform behind the exhibition at Hofa Gallery. (After exhibiting in London in the spring “Kouros” travelled to the Greek island of Mykonos for another show.) Also at Hofa were a glossed-porcelain Jeff Koons “Balloon Rabbit”, a Yoshitomo Nara woodcut and relief prints by the cult African-American artist Nina Chanel Abney, along with a couple of works by Banksy — signed screen prints of “Girl with Balloon” and “Grin Reaper”. which is not about HOFA gallery itself, but about the artists and the cofounder of of an "online investment platform". It is just a name check for the gallery, not sigcov. Netherzone (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret T. May

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

Tagged as questionable in notability and sourcing since 2017. I have seen nothing that suggests that this subject meets WP:NPROF. BD2412 T 03:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. BD2412 T 03:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject has a SCOPUS profile here which indicates c. 16,000 citations, and Web of Science indicates c. 10,000 citations. ResonantDis_tortion 12:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @ResonantDistortion: I would note, though, that subject is on a lot of papers where she is named as one of a half-dozen or more co-authors, for which she almost never appears as the lead author. I am basing this off of what I can see from Google Scholar. BD2412 T 15:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nnev66 (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC) ~~Comment~~ I'm leaning Keep as subject has a high D-index (H-index) of 81 so passes WP:NACADEMIC#1. She is the corresponding author on a Lancet article with 1,496 citations, 2nd author on another with 1,437 citations and 1014 citations. From Google Scholar I can see that she does have a number of high citation count first author papers 149 citations, 757 citations, 494 citations, 297 citations (I didn't go through everything). Perhaps HIV papers get higher citation counts but nonetheless she appears to have done important work from glancing at the studies. That being said the article has barely any content and would need an overhaul. I'd be willing to do it if there's consensus that she meets WP:NACADEMIC#1 but I'll need a few weeks to do it. Nnev66 (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following up my initial comment, if she did the modeling for all these studies it would make sense that she'd have a high citation count, with caveat without much effort I easily found articles where she had a high author position on the paper. She was not a chaired professor and I don't see any awards. I can't find anything about her other than what's on the University of Bristol web site archive links in the article. I'll await further input from the community about meeting notability with NACAD criteria #1. Nnev66 (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When a statistician such as May appears in a non-leading author position in a well-cited science paper, one might assume that she was brought in to crunch the numbers on a project someone else designed and ran, and is not the main person to credit for its success; I don't think those sorts of works count much towards WP:PROF#C1. But when she is first author, it is much more likely to be primarily her work and more statistical in nature. In Google Scholar among first-author papers I see
- 756 for "Impact on life expectancy of HIV-1 positive individuals"
- 494 for "Impact of late diagnosis and treatment on life expectancy"
- 297 for "Does psychological distress predict the risk of ischemic stroke"
- 276 for "Prognosis of patients with HIV-1 infection starting antiretroviral therapy"
- 149 for "Life expectancy of HIV-positive adults: a review",
- 106 for "Cohort profile: antiretroviral therapy cohort collaboration"

etc. To me that's enough to make a case for #C1 (especially factoring in the natural reduction in citation counts resulting from heavily filtering the publications in this way, compared to just looking at someone's top-cited publications). I suspect she has retired recently because she has published as recently as 2023 but I couldn't find a current listing for her at Bristol. I did verify that she was promoted to full professor in 2015 [11]. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Prof#C1. I'm not a fan of the obsession with citation numbers in real life or here in Wikipedia, but it's a strong consensus. Bearian (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Nnev66. Subject meets WP:NACADEMIC#1. RolandSimon (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on clear pass of wP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Agreed with David's analysis. JoelleJay (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cold in the Earth

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

Book that fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not exactly very notable, but there is two reviews, which should be enough for NBOOK. Review in Publishers Weekly (here) and Brazosport Facts (here). Also seems to be a review in Booklist (Gale A77135100), but it's just a sentence, and the rest is other books. Also possibly one in The Armchair Detective Volume 27, but I can't find a copy online. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A good alternative might be for us to make a series page and have the individual entries redirect there. I'm a big fan of having series pages as opposed to individual book entries unless the books are exceptionally notable, like Twilight or ASOIAF/AGOT. If I have time, I'll try to make a page for this, but if anyone else wants to tackle this, feel free. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Pelmear

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

No evidence of notability found. Played in notable series like Dr Who, but only a minor role. He is just a name appearing in lists of actors, but doesn't get further attention in books[12]. No news sources paid significant attention to his death[13]. General Google results are wiki's and fora, no indepth reliable sources there either[14]. Fram (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are people less notable than him who have an article. So, I don't see why this article should be deleted. And besides, it can be improved over time. Spectritus (talk) 9:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Fram (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His role in The Time Warrior is significant, not minor. Merge into a not-yet existing cast section of that serial. Thanks. (https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-guide/the-time-warrior/) -Mushy Yank. 19:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He played in 4 of the 26 episodes of one season of this long-running series. It's a significant role in that one story arc, it is a minor role in Doctor Who. Fram (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sure, it's also less important in the universal history of fiction than Rhett Butler and Darth Vader, which in turn are less important than Odyssseus and Don Quixote, etc, but that's not really the point.... It's a significant [not minor] role in a notable production and that's why I suggest to Redirect the page there. If other significant ro|es in notable productions are identified, the Redirect can be undone and the page expanded back into a proper article. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 19:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As I said before, there are people less notable than him who have an article. So, there's no reason to delete this one. Spectritus (talk) 8:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment He also appeared in many roles on stage. I'll try to add info about that, and sources from digitised newspapers. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much appreciated. Spectritus (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Bacon

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

I created this article at the request of the Women in Red project. User:Billsmith60 doesn’t think she is notable but their own WP:AFD submission was incorrectly formatted so I am bringing it here myself for the community to decide. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Architecture. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lead architect on several notable projects and clearly of high standing in her profession. PamD 07:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (as per my comments on article Talk page; I am grateful to user:Theroadislong for their assistance in reopening my proposal): this looks like a clear candidate for deletion. Being nominated for a professional award does not make someone notable. All sources cited are from professional journals or merely Companies House regarding her business interests. She is known only within that professional sector (architecture). Notwithstanding improvements to address the lack of articles on women, Wikipedia rules have to be adhered to: if this article stays, every British managing partner in a business will want one Billsmith60 (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing is sourced to Companies House and she seems to easily pass WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable, sources independent of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate and full name were sourced to CH. I found an alternative source for her name whi h does not include birthdate, now removed. PamD 17:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NARCHITECT as the lead architect on multiple notable buildings/projects. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Levy

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

This article does not demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Wikipedia evaluates notability primarily through two pathways: the general notability guideline (GNG), which requires significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources with strong editorial oversight, and subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG), which are tailored to specific fields like academics, athletes, or entertainers.

In this case, the article appears to concern a religious figure, not an academic, so WP:NACADEMIC is not applicable. The more relevant SNG is WP:NPERSON, which still requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that are not directly affiliated with the subject.

After reviewing the sources:

CheckCompany provides a minimal corporate profile with no substantial coverage. (Too sparse)
ReformJudaism.org.uk is a primary source from an organization the subject leads. (Not independent)
Jewish News focuses on organizational developments and only briefly mentions Levy. (Wrong subject)
Leo Baeck College profile is uncredited and potentially self-authored. (Unreliable, likely self-published)
JewishGen is about a synagogue building, not Levy himself. (Too sparse, Wrong subject)

These sources fail to provide the significant, in-depth, and independent coverage required for notability under either GNG or NPERSON. Without substantial third-party coverage—particularly from newspapers, religious publications, or similar sources—there is no verifiable basis for inclusion. As it stands, the article should be deleted for lack of notability.

Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 02:39, 30 March 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 March 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete-~~ Reason above Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:AFDLIST - as the nominator recommending deletion, you should not also !vote. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC) (She's right, your nomination is your vote, you can't cast a duplicate one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Keep As the chief executive of the Movement for Reform Judaism and co-leader of the new Progressive Judaism (UK) movement [15], [16], I think he is probably notable per WP:RELPEOPLE. He is not the Chief Rabbi, who is inherently notable, but as co-leader (with Charley Baginsky) of a group that covers 30% [17] of Jewish people affiliated with synagogues in the UK, this is still a subtantial position. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could be better but he is notable as the joint leader of a significant religious movement in the UK.

Rafts of Calm (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As leader of the British Reform movement, Josh Levy sits alongside Ephraim Mirvis as Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Wittenberg as Senior Rabbi for Masorti Judaism, and Charley Baginsky as the leader of the British Liberal Jewish movement as the four leaders covering about 90% of British Jews. Just google him. This article needs improving, not deleting.

Dev920 00:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two Sevens

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Popular culture, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 09:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John King (author): or to Peter Mason (journalist), mentioned there. And in time, if secondary sources are added, expand back into a page (Redirect with possibilities). -Mushy Yank. 09:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Two different Redirect target articles suggested here. Any more support for either one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anglais

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

A classic case of a redirect with possibilities being needlessly disambiguated. Yes, this term is French for English, but WP:DAB explicitly states that a disambiguation page is not a foreign language dictionary. Sure, there are historical ties between English and French, but this could be said for any number of pairs of languages; it doesn't warrant foreign language disambiguation for all of them. Should be a redirect to the only thing known by this name in English, as it was originally. — Anonymous 19:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and England. — Anonymous 19:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural close~~. This is not proposed as an article for deletion: the nominator's preferred disposal is to redirect it, and no policy reason to delete is offered. Just redirect it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shhhnotsoloud, already tried, was reverted because it was previously an RfD. Consensus has established that AfD is the correct venue for controversial BLARs. — Anonymous 14:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. In which case, Redirect to Country dance. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A valid DAB, with at least four possibilities and maybe more: the dictionary definition, country dance, creme anglaise and Les Anglais in Haiti. (Note that anglaise redirects to country dance; it should redirect here.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dclemens1971, see WP:DABDICT and WP:PARTIAL. A dictionary definition is a textbook example of what to never put on a DAB page, while creme anglaise and Les Anglais are partial title matches whose subjects are not known as simply "anglais" alone. — Anonymous 14:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are enough of a conceptual match to overcome any concerns in this situation, and re: DABDICT, what I see here as a definition is fully compliant with the guidance on that page that a short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context. "Creme anglaise" is at least as appropriate a navigational result as "country dance" for this word. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Dclemens1971, I don't follow. I'll grant that you could make the argument that a brief definition of the word anglais could not possibly hurt if there were a need for a DAB page to begin with, but providing the definition is not a reason for the existence of said page. Your response also seems to ignore WP:PARTIAL; unless you can provide a source showing where someone refers to "creme anglaise" as simply "anglais(e)" without the extra word, then it will only ever be a partial title match (same with "Les Anglaise"). However, there are sources that refer to the dance as simply "anglais". — Anonymous 16:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is extremely normal in cooking to refer to creme anglaise as just "anglaise" or "the anglaise", as in "Time to make the anglaise." See Dale-Roberts, The Test Kitchen; Foskett, Campbell and Patkins, Practical Cookery: Level 3; the Culinary Institute of America text Baking and Pastry; etc. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nobody calls Crème anglaise "Anglais", and we Brits just call it custard. "Anglais" isn't a plausible search term for "Law French", and as for the English language and people, it has been rightly said above that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary of foreign terms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971 unintentionally makes an argument against one of the supposed ambiguities. Checking, it turns out that those books never say "anglais" for crème anglaise and always say "anglaise".
However: subtract one, add one. "Anglaise" (also "Anglaise tardive") was an old name for the duke cherry, more formally known (after some jumping about the binomials over the years) as Prunus × gondouinii (redlinked at Prunus subg. Cerasus and List of Prunus species). Equally, I cannot find any good quality musical sources that use "anglais", in actual English, for country dance; only "Anglaise" or "Anglois", sometimes italicized, sometimes not. And no-one calls law French "Anglais" or "Anglaise", not least because that would be a complete misnomer. So:
- Anglaise is ambiguous between crème anglaise, the country dance, and Prunus × gondouinii
- This article title, anglais, is not actually used in English for anything listed on the disambiguation, and doesn't have its own plausible redirect target at all except to (ironically) anglaise.
The correct course of action seems to be to rename this to anglaise and make it a three-way disambiguation. It is typical of Wikipedia that we have it exactly backwards after 2 decades. Uncle G (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G Anglaise is just the feminine of anglais; it would be silly to have two separate dab pages for what is the same word in French. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a good thing that I did not say to do that, then. Please read what I actually said that I think to be the correct course of action to take. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uncle G I wasn't saying you said that, I was just pointing out that they are the same word so one dab page will suffice. Often harder to get to a consensus for "move" than for "keep" since a move is an editorial decision, but if it's anglaise instead of anglais, no skin off my nose either way. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Maybe I misunderstood something concerning "editorial decision"? I do see that "harder to get" was used. The lead at Articles for deletion states, Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed from "Delete") Seems like trivia. But may be better to keep since it is geared to disambiguate. Ramos1990 (talk)
~~Redirect~~, I am not sure if the "Delete" !votes are fully reading this discussion? Well, the correct !vote here should be to redirect per " Should be a redirect to the only thing known by this name in English, as it was originally." Agree with editor Shhnotsoloud assessment. Though I have been convinced that a Keep would be acceptable here. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but with just the dance entry, Les Anglais (Haitian commune), Les Anglais (a book by Philippe Daudy), and Charlotte Anglais (List of One Piece characters). Wikipedia is not a French-English dictionary, so English language and English people are out. The introductory sentence translation and the Wiktionary link are quite sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Partial matches should not be catered to by dab pages. There appears to be just the one term that is used exactly thus, and that is the country dance. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

England

Gabriel Kanter-Webber

Vikas Kapoor

Jenny Taylor

Chris Macdonald (scientist)

Aero Pictorial

The Suggestibles

Rescue (band)

Richard Wilton

List of places in the Wye Valley

Intec Digital

Melendez Films

Jamjarcars

Kaplan Law School

Anna Nicholas

Steve Bentley

Richard Ferrer

Fiona Foster

Lewis Alexander

Nick Bilton

House of Fine Art

Margaret T. May

Cold in the Earth

Donald Pelmear

Joanna Bacon

Josh Levy

Two Sevens

Anglais

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also