Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

WP:DELSORT/ENGLANDWP: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

List of wedding guests of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank

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

Excessive listcruft for attendees, many non-notable, at the wedding of a non-active royal, 12th in line to the throne. AusLondonder (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, Lists, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I have seen these lists for other royal weddings and was initially leaning toward weak keep, but I scrolled down and I'd say a total of 1/3 of all reported guests have no source. Aesurias (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I bet the creation was promted by everything going on around Andrew. A guest list from a private wedding, for non working royalty, does not meet standards for notability or enduring significance. It’s more tabloid-style content from my point of view. Mag2k (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article was created in 2018 Aesurias (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the creator of this list back in 2018, it has spiraled into unsourced cruft and serves no purpose. The most notable guests can be listed on the page for the event. Walco1 (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per request of article creator Waco. — Maile (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator fails to provide any policy-based rationale for deletion rather than simply removing any unsourced content Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and lack of any valid MOS:LISTPURP. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stella March

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

No indication of meeting GNG - I have searched for sources to no avail. qcne (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. qcne (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Modus Cup

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSPORT – it's just a game played between high school students. Tagged as such since 2018. Incidental coverage in a local newspaper and for one game only in the Daily Mail. The page is mostly serving as a library of links to Vimeo and YouTube videos of the games; attempts to remove those links under WP:ELNO have repeatedly failed. I attempted to remove the links and tidy up the formatting, and prod the article this morning; both edits were reverted without comment. • a frantic turtle 🐢 15:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, numerous reliable sources:

[1]

[2]

[3] - Daily Mail article

[4]

[5]

Pretty sure it passes WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT with blazing colors. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby union, and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a hot mess, and needs copy editing, but based upon what I see, there has been significant coverage. It's not quite TNT-worthy. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Zuk

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

Article sourced to Evertise AI PR, blogs, listings and paid promotions, the subject - a Polish model, fashion influencer, entrepreneur, and philanthropist - fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, United Arab Emirates, and Poland. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, France, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most of the sources do look like PR work, but this [6] and this [[7]] can weigh toward inclusion. As with other models and "influencers", I would like to see how discussion is going on and see how to treat it further. Mag2k (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd only note that 'New York Weekly Times' is NOT the NYT supplement and has no identified editorial team. The l'Officiel coverage is from the Indian licensee and the tone is deeply suspect... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a poorly sourced advertorial about a BLP. Bearian (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject has received coverage in established fashion magazines, including FHM India and L'Officiel, which are recognized international publications. Additional profiles show sustained media attention beyond routine PR. Given her recognition over several years and coverage in multiple publications, the article shows enough verifiablity for someone in the fashion industry. The subject appears to meet WP:GNG; the article can be improved for neutrality rather than deleted outright. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxx

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

WP:PROMO and WP:NCORP. None of the sources satisfy the standards of WP:ORGTRIV. Most are primary or not reliable (i.e. WP:FORBESCON). Niafied (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Niafied (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Niafied (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Niafied (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see the concern, but if you look at the sources of some of the other Wikipedia articles on venture capital firms, they do tend to be from tech media publications or similar (Tech.eu, TechCrunch etc.) and most of the information in the articles relates to funding rounds which the venture capital firm either raised or contributed to. I would claim that is just the nature of the business and where the most important information on venture capital firms can be found. Some examples: Acton Capital, Newfund, Iris Capital, and many more at List of venture capital firms. Commissaress (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for keeping the page. Plenty of venture capital firms do get signficant coverage in reliable pages. If there are other pages that don't meet those standards, they will likely be nominated for deletion eventually. Since you're being paid for your contributions, you might find it difficult to objectively assess the company's notability. Niafied (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Born in the U.S.A. Live: London 2013

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

No significant coverage, article only cites a news story about a pre-order. Mika1h (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and New Jersey. Mika1h (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, maybe it could be added to the page Born in the U.S.A.? Jaybainshetland (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Born in the U.S.A.: Fails WP:NALBUM. No SIGCOV in RS. paintdvd ☎ 16:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Born in the U.S.A. Agree it Fails WP:NALBUM. as Paintdvd says. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree that it fails WP:NALBUM, but I favor deletion because the article says it is or was a "limited edition." That at least strongly suggests that it is no longer available given the January 2014 release date (though I admit I haven't bothered with research to try to find out whether that is in fact the case). 1995hoo (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, a comment: The person who originally created the article, Jason1978, no longer edits under that name. He now edits under "JasonH1978." I believe he said he lost his password or some such and created a new account. Don't know whether there's any reason to post the notice on the new username's talk page. 1995hoo (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Costello

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

I have taken the liberty of searching for available sources on this individual, but could only find a limited number of mostly questionable sources that don't go much beyond quick biographies. In my view, there isn't enough to warrant an article under WP:NBIO at this time.

The WP:PRIMARY source used in this article from GB News is unfortunately also not reliable per WP:GBNEWS. WP:METRO is also not reliable. I welcome any participants who wish to find any more sources, but unfortunately I don't think there is enough. Delete. 11WB (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ellie Costello is a British journalist and presenter at GB News, and she has some independent media coverage in major news outlets such as ITV News, The Standard Originalflavors (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. 11WB (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are unfortunately not enough to satisfy a WP:BLP article. The ITV News one is about something that has no relevance to the article. The Standard is another of the same report of the wedding which is already present on the article, and only scrapes by on reliability per WP:THESTANDARD. 11WB (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She seems to have a decent amount of coverage from a search. Passes, but not by much. ←Metallurgist (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should I close this as speedy keep? No point this being open for the full week if it's been determined the minimal coverage she has is enough to pass. 11WB (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@11WB, you can close as speedy keep if no one has argued for delete. But if you still disagree, you should keep it open. -- asilvering (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I only ask out of respect, as I've missed the mark with recent BLP/biographical AfD nominations. 11WB (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have to be careful with the amount I say in this AfD now, as I realise it can look like bludgeoning. That isn't my intention. I wanted to note that the only source I can find confirming the birthdate is this. This is very likely an AI prompt article. Just something to consider. 11WB (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Armstrong (astronomer)

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

Non-notable amateur astronomer, sourced only to a database and a meeting report that barely mentions his name. Of the two deadlink extlinks only one provides any depth of coverage and is of unclear reliability. Being a minor planet discoverer is not itself a criterion for notability; we need depth of sourcing or significant scholarly impact. Passes neither WP:GNG nor WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 23:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. e.ux 00:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has discovered 70 supernovae..... https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003JBAA..113R.248H/abstract, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-0-387-46269-1.pdf. Does meet WP:PROF "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable source"... through criterion SNC1b " made a significant discovery"..... e.ux 00:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an argument to WP:PROF#C1, for which "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" does not refer to the number of discoveries, but their impact, as usually measured by citations from the scholarly literature. But I can only find one well-cited paper coauthored by him, "The Rise Time of Nearby Type Ia Supernovae", in which he is in a middle position among 11 authors. That's far from enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's #C1a -highly cited academic work-, I am basing my !vote on C1b.

He migh also be considered a Wikipedia:GNG pass anyway: https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000JAVSO..29...49H http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3112508.stm Discovered the first ever supernova found from the UK (https://britastro.org/vss/Novae_Supernovae_hurst_Clanfield_20100313.pdf) https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4471-0639-5_10" describing him as a leading supernova discoverer. e.ux 02:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep: I'm inclined to agree with Eva UX. We have some good impact there, although I'd like to see a bit more still to be sure. Renerpho (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep: The article needs additional work, but there is enough to establish notability. Mag2k (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've copied the content to User:Urhixidur/List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers so that it's not lost regardless of the decision. Urhixidur (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Urhixidur: You may be interested in the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planet discoverers that is ongoing right now (we are currently working on a replacement here: User:Renerpho/List of minor planet discoverers). Renerpho (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you create that, its a potential redirect. ←Metallurgist (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep the article needs a little work, but the subject passes notability criteria. Off the topic comment: instead of academics/scientists/professor, we should tighten the criteria for athletes, beauty pageant contestants, and actors. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article should be expanded, but per Eva UX appears to at least be notable enough. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One would think this passes, but I dont see any sources at all. The few above have only passing mentions, nothing focused on him. And when I search Mark Armstrong astronomer, all I get is Neil's son, who doesnt have an article himself (and maybe should). There is literally nothing to build this on, which is why it has two useless sources and barely anything for an article in nearly twenty years. ←Metallurgist (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wanted to lean keep but on further inspection the most notable Mark Armstrong is Neil Armstrong's son. I can't find any sources for Mark Armstrong the astronomer. Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acumen (magazine)

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

I am struggling to find references of quality for this literary journal. I cannot see how it passes WP:GNG 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and United Kingdom. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added WP:SIGCOV in multiple book sources and journals to the article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the original sources that aren't dead links, plus the newly added ones are very brief passing mentions, often in directories. Not sure this comes under WP:NJOURNAL as it's not an academic, peer reviewed journal but it doesn't meet WP:GNG. It doesn't seem to pay contributors so seems to be a publication of amateur poetry which may explain why WP:BEFORE came up with so little. Orange sticker (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is an accurate representation of the materials. I noticed you removed an assessment of the publication under a POV claim even though it came from a book published by McGraw Hill, a respected academic press. I attributed the quote to its author (which seemed unnecessary since it was cited), but that should assuage POV concerns. There are clear indications this is notable literary journal because of the content of what is said in the sources. Not everything is about length of words, but about what is said. 4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PUFFERY, "leading" is in the list of words to watch. Orange sticker (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. This was in a list of "leading poetry journals" compiled in a book by a respected author from an academic publisher who is a subject matter expert. Claims of importance matter when they come from reliable SECONDARY sources.4meter4 (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. The sources found by 4meter4.
2. "Acumen article". The Poetry Review. Vol. 83. 1993. Retrieved 2025-10-28 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "Acumen It would be tempting though not quite fair to say that Acumen now occupies the territory once held by the unreconstructed Outposts: there's the same emphasis on single poems, often by unfamiliar authors ... ... could stand as characteristic Acumen titles. There's a danger of complacency in this, but Patricia Oxley guards against it by attracting excellent established poets (Brownjohn, Ewart, Porter, the indefatigable Heath-Stubbs) and by finding some unusually confident newer voices. Where some editors' open doors let in the dust from the streets, hers admits the bracing fresh air of writers who convincingly reinvent the familiar: David Sutton, in 'Heatwave' ('The world's less real on summer afternoons. / We walk in dazzle, wan as daylit ghosts'); Adam Johnson, whose autumnal 'End of Season' ('lt pulls again, a green wave at my heels, / Furling the summer cinder... ') moves from simple regret to the terror of 'Profound incontrovertible disease'. Acumen shares with Outposts the problem of critical sharpness in its prose: some of its reviews, particularly of those perennial poets well-known ..."
3. Jerome, Helen M. (May 2000). "The U.K. Literary Journal Market". Poets and Writers Magazine. Vol. 28, no. 3. p. 58. ProQuest 1311717092.
  The article notes: "Acumen is a beautifully produced, paper-back-format literary magazine founded in 1985. Editor Patricia Oxley states that her aim is "to publish good poetry in a critical context." The journal thus publishes articles on poetry, poetic reminiscences, reviews as well as poetry. Each issue of Acumen publishes up to 50 new poems and includes a separate, pull-out poster featuring the work of one writer. Acumen will publish experimental poetry if it's not too obscure, as well as narrative."
4. "Literary Ladies". Torquay Herald Express. 1986-11-27. Archived from the original on 2025-10-28. Retrieved 2025-10-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "A literary magazine edited and published by a South Devon woman arrived on my desk recently. Issue No 4, out last month, was the first l had heard of Acumen, the pages of which are packed with poems, interviews and reviews. The editor, Patricia Oxley, of Brixham, says her aim was to publish good poetry from known and unknown writers, male or female. Yet she found an increasing number of manuscripts coming in were from women. Not only this, many of her subscribers were women. ... Because of this, Patricia is now welcoming feedback and inquiries from writers' circles, womens' groups and so on — with copies of Acumen at £1.50, a reduction of 25p. The magazine was launched last year."
5. "Agenda article". Agenda. Poets' and Painters' Press. 1992. Retrieved 2025-10-28 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "In its constant search for the good poem Acumen has published work by Sebastian Barker, Julie Whitby, Julian May, Penelope Shuttle, John Heath-Stubbs, Hilary Davies, Heather Buck, Peter Dale, Edward Lowbury, Adam Johnson and a galaxy of other poets. A comprehensive and well-written reviews section, initiated by William Oxley and now edited by Glyn Pursglove, plus short stories, critical articles and a new feature 'Overheard on Parnassus' make up this magazine of over 100pp. Only £ 3.00 per issue or £5.50 subscription (2 issues a year: April and October) Patricia Oxley, Acumen Publications"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Acumen to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crowcroft

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

Town in England. If sources do exist, unclear naming makes finding suitable sources difficult. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Europe and England. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GEOLAND. There are businesses with this address listed in books [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. I'm seeing housing listings in google. This is clearly a populated place. Based on this application (see official document here) involving property zoning in Crowcroft, the town falls under the Malvern Hills District. It would appear to be a legally recognized place that is populated which makes it a GEOLAND pass.4meter4 (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Crowcroft is recognised as a hamlet in Ordnance Survey's Open Names database (file SO64), but even if it passes WP:GEOLAND it does not necessarily mean a hamlet like this is best served by a separate article. As an alternative, if there is little to write about, consideration should be given to a merge/redirect to the civil parish it's within, namely Leigh, Worcestershire. There's no mention of Crowcroft within this article on the history of the parish,[13] which may indicate the hamlet isn't notable and possibly rebuts the "typically presumed" notability of GEOLAND. Rupples (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it is an OS settlement[14] which may qualify it as legally recognized. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep per WP:GEOLAND. Mag2k (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GEOLAND I will try and improve it. Moondragon21 (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it passes Wikipedia:GEOLAND DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per 4meter4 sources and WP:GEOLAND. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Purcell

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

British television and film actor, fails WP:GNG. Minor roles only, no WP:SIGCOV presented in article or, indeed, found in search. Roles such as '2nd policeman' and 'special branch man' do not get us past WP:NACTOR. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR for leading stage roles in the 1970s and 1980s. I added reviews. There are more out there. Additionally, he was a main cast member in The Cleopatras in the part of Alexander the Younger. It was not a minor part. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Ellison

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

Only seems notable for who he's related to Sincemeaningfully (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a case of WP:BLP1E weighing on borderline notability. The sources cited in the article aren't great, but other sources exist that cover the subject in a significant way. However, most of these sources talk about his background in the context of his daughter's conviction. Because he is otherwise relatively low profile (defined as getting little attention otherwise in secondary sources, not on how high a job he holds), and without those sources there is no way he would be notable, we should avoid having an article about him here.Cornerstone1949 (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, England, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets NPROF criteria 3 and 5 from his AAA&S fellowship and endowed professorship at MIT. BhamBoi (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BhamBoi, passes WP:NPROF#C3, WP:NPROF#C5, and likely WP:NPROF#C1. I would also point out that this article has existed since 2017, which is before anyone knew who his daughter is. MCE89 (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nomination failed completely to consider the appropriate criterion of WP:NPROF. In particular, named chairs at MIT are generally notable. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for passing WP:PROF as argued in the !votes above. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - named professor at a major university. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Even though the named professorship at MIT should be enough (PROF#C5), the Amacad membership is even more convincing to me (PROF#C3). They are at roughly the same level as the National Academies but with a broader focus also covering the humanities, and much stronger than the individual society fellowships that we usually deem to pass #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He is most notable for being the father of Caroline Ellison, the romantic partner and partner in crime of Sam Bankman-Fried, Most secondary sources that I found referenced him in this context, making this a WP:BLP1E page. However his own work does appear to meet the criteria for WP:PROF Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He may be "most well known in the popular press" for that one thing, but what he most strongly passes our notability criteria (and is therefore most notable) for is his academic work. Having weak notability in the popular press is not a valid reason for discounting his academic notability, which is not based on the existence of secondary sourcing. There is a run-down of what he is actually known for among economists at [15] (it's not independent, but again that's not relevant for academic notability as long as it can be considered reliable). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Channelcast

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

The subject does not pass WP:N. I'm not seeing reliable sources when doing a BEFORE. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Politics, England, Jersey, and Islands. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find no coverage on this podcast other than ITV which makes it.4meter4 (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- lacking in SIGCOV sources with the current citations in it, additional searches is not helping making it more notable.Lorraine Crane (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Clark (AI policy expert)

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

We have interviews, biography listings, trivial mentions, podcasts, self-published blogs, a few more interviews and routine coverage generated from his controversial tweets between October 17-19, 2025. The only substantial coverage is from an article on Entrepreneur.com, which appears to be an undisclosed paid piece, as there are no other articles from the bylined journalist and nothing on Alistair Barr’s LinkedIn profile indicates any association with Entrepreneur.com. Subject lacks reliable sources that are independent to justify a standalone article and should therefore be merged or redirected to Anthropic as an ATD-R. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Journalism, Europe, and United Kingdom. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, the article should be renamed, since "expert" is POV. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"AI policy expert" is indeed not ideal. Do you have an alternative to suggest? Maybe just "AI policy", although it's more of a topic than a professional role. Alenoach (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"AI strategist"? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think the Entrepreneur.com article is undisclosed sponsored content. It was originally published on Business Insider ("This article originally appeared on Business Insider"), where Alistair Barr works. The Business Insider source is just less convenient because it is paywalled. Barr is a former editor of Clark, but Business Insider would indicate if the article were sponsored. Secondary, independent, reliable sources centered on Jack Clark include the article from The Wall Street Journal the one from AP News, and this one from Axios. I only listed here those from prominent newspapers.

The only part that could fit in the article on Anthropic is the last paragraph, with the content related to David Sacks, the rest is too specific to Clark. A merge would result in deleting most of the article, so I believe it's more of a keep or delete decision. Alenoach (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Clark told Axios, AP News or WSJ about Anthropic is irrelevant when trying to establish Jack Clark’s own notability, because notability isn’t inherited. The Business Insider article clearly states that Alistair Barr and Jack Clark worked together in the past, which raises concerns about its independence as well. Also noting that most of the sources cited in the article and this AfD are related to Anthropic, so you’re not actually losing out on much content if the consensus to merge is reached. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 'inheritance' of notability if Anthropic is a major player (which it is) and Clark was a significant founder.

Keep I find the nomination unconvincing and clutching at straws, having already decided the outcome. Clark is one of the major voices in UK AI direction (and notably contrasting to most of the US techbro viewpoints). We should have this article, the clear demonstration of that is a job for editors to do some encyclopedic journalism here, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a classic case of "inherited" notability, actually. If he's only known for co-founding one company, then he's only really known for one event. Do the other things actually have significant coverage? "Clark maintains a newsletter" and "Clark gave a briefing" sound like run-of-the-mill activities for the chattering class. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artificial intelligence-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 06:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the Business Insider article, I had difficulty finding reliable, independent secondary sources that are about Jack Clark himself and not just something he said at one point, etc. Enervation (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Along with the Business Insider article I see APNEWS and Remio. Adding to that, he has articles on G-Scholar that have significant cites, including one that has over 50K. There are a number of interviews - which, while they do not confer notability they do indicate that he is worth interviewing. Lamona (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the title, I suggest "Jack Clark, AI developer". Lamona (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed earlier, what Clark says about his company is irrelevant in establishing his notability. Remio isn’t a reliable news publisher and the paper/book with 50k citations lists 30 other authors, with the main ones being: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (NeurIPS 2020) — Edited by H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin. Also the citations are irrelevant here since he is not being evaluated under WP:NPROF and your keep vote isn’t based on any policy. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people who are not academics do research and publish, and I see no reason to exclude his publications in this analysis. (I've also found some book chapters that I'll try to add to the article.) That one article is an outlier(1), but there are others. Also the BI and APNEWS are not him talking about his company, they are others writing about him. I do agree that Remio is a "trade publication" and not a source of notability. We should add his government commission positions to the article. This still leaves us with two good sources - and that is a policy: wp:gng.

(1) The number of "authors" on research publications varies greatly by field. In areas like biology I've seen >100 names on an article because they include everyone involved in the research, which can involve research labs in multiple countries. So I think we should withhold judgment about the importance of the number of authors unless we have information about the context of the publication. Lamona (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I should have accessed the paper first. It says: Jack Clark led the analysis of ethical impacts — fairness and representation, human assessments of the model, and broader impacts analysis, and advised Gretchen, Amanda, Girish, Sandhini, and Ariel on their work. Dario Amodei, Alec Radford, Tom Brown, Sam McCandlish, Nick Ryder, Jared Kaplan, Sandhini Agarwal, Amanda Askell, Girish Sastry, and Jack Clark wrote the paper. It sounds like he had a solid involvement. Lamona (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Cohn-Sherbok

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

Nominating on behalf of 67.168.18.133 who made a request at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AfD Request: Dan Cohn-Sherbok. I have no opinion on this topic.4meter4 (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Judaism. 4meter4 (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To me, this seems like a pretty obvious case of WP:NPOSSIBLE and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article has a lot of problems, most notably a lack of citations, and inline citation criteria for BLP are not remotely met, but given the number of sources available from a simple google search, the subject seems to meet notability guidelines exceptionally easily for a AFD nomination. Without any rationale for deletion at all, there is no way I could support a deletion here, and this may well be a speedy keep based on rationale 1 of the guideline. The subject is a controversial figure, and I think there is every possibility that this was the reason for the nomination. Whether that is the case or not, I can't possibly see how this does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Perhaps the IP could specify?Cornerstone1949 (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cornerstone1949: The IP claims there has been COI editing by the subject of the article, and made a WP:NOTPROMO argument. They also claim there are WP:POV issues. I cannot confirm or deny that assessment.4meter4 (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, it helps a lot in understanding why this page was nominated. Looking at the history, there is likely COI editing, but of course that doesn't change the individual's notability. To me this is looking like misunderstanding of the grounds for deletion on the part of the IP since the article has issues, but that is not grounds for deletion. The IP (or anyone else) is welcome to improve on these issues, and if the subject is inappropriately editing the article, we have ways to remedy that. For what it's worth, a lot of the editing by the subject is pretty benign, and I can appreciate that he very clearly discloses his identity in his username. Of course this doesn't follow policy, but I think the IP really went straight to the nuclear option here. I will leave a message on the subject's talk page, but I think no further action is really necessary. Cornerstone1949 (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

speedy Keep widely cited author and academic, meets GNG, NAUTHOR, and NACADEMIC. Andre🚐 23:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, England, Wales, Colorado, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject has replied on his talk page, I think any issues with COI editing should now be resolved.Cornerstone1949 (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable with fairly minor COI issues, see the talk page (the subject only made minor updates to the article according to discussion there). Lovelyfurball (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Peter Werth

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

Fails WP:BIO. No real sources to speak of for the fashion designer or his namesake company. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Other than the piece in the Manchester Evening News (which seem based on a press release with the byline: "men Administrator") all I'm finding about this Peter Werth is his website, Instagram, Facebook, EBay, Postmark, Wordpress, Etsy, but no SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:CREATIVE. Netherzone (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC) Additional comment: I found the citations on Newspapers.com (location to UK) that were kindly brought to the table by 4Meter4 (thanks again!), however only one of the newspaper articles provided SIGCOV, that being Tufnell Leads Peter Werth Buy In in the Daily Telegraph. The other newspaper citations are simple name checks with no coverage of Peter Werth himself, or his company. The two book citations are duplicates of one another (under different titles) which seems to be a fluffy description of what the models (atheletes?) are wearing, and not about Peter Werth himself (or his company). While I am keeping an open mind if additional SIGCOV is found, at this time I still don't think notability been established per WP:GNG, and as far as his company (not sure if this two sentence stub is a BLP, or on his business of the same name or both), and if it's the business, the company doesn't meet WP:NCORP nor WP:CORPDEPTH due to incidental trivial coverage. Hopefully some decent sources can be found, but if not my !vote remains D*elete. Netherzone (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a prominent men's clothing brand of long standing in the UK. It has some coverage of being influential in sports fan culture in the UK with certain type of football enthusiasts (particularly Manchester) embracing its clothes as part of their subculture. It was difficult finding materials because, as with most fashion reporting, it was mostly on the clothes and pictures of models on runways (nominal stuff like this) and other rather trivial fluff). That said, the following materials could be used:

Walsh, Fiona (October 4, 1987). "Paul Michael's Right Pattern For Profits". Sunday Telegraph. p. 32. (covers acquisition of Peter Werth Company by PML Group)
"PML Group". The Daily Telegraph. October 6, 1987. p. 25.
Hall, James (January 10, 2008). "Tufnell Leads Peter Werth Buy In". The Daily Telegraph. p. B3.
Redhead, Steve (2015). Football and Accelerated Culture: This Modern Sporting Life. Taylor & Francis. pp. 63–64. ISBN 9781317411550. (coverage of impact on sports clothing/culture in UK)
Treadwell, J.; Hopkins, Matt (eds.). Football Hooliganism, Fan Behaviour and Crime: Contemporary Issues. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 143–144. ISBN 9781137347978. (coverage of impact on sports clothing/culture in UK)
Wiggins, Liz (November 5, 1997). "Designer Chic On the Street". Dorset Echo. p. 18. (brief but names Peter Werth as a top men's designer on par with Calvin Klein in a critical assessment of the fashion industry)
Moore, Ashley (April 30, 1998). "Commando Cool". Stafford Post. p. 26. (again brief but critically assesses Peter Werth as a top fashion brand)
Young, Kate (November 26, 1999). "Trivial Ideas for Men". Isle of Wight County Press. p. 17. (this is an example of low level coverage that happens a lot mentioning stores caring Peter Werth clothes with pictures of products and brief comments; there's a lot of this kind of thing. Not SIGCOV but shows relevance to broader culture)
Walsh, Fiona (March 28, 2000). "Better Times in Store as HoF Stands Still". Evening Standard. p. 42. (not SIGCOV but confirms addition to House of Fraser brands)

Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4, thank you for the research you have done. Is it possible to please provide links to the actual articles (rather than just the publication), so that others can can read them and assess their coverage? I was not able to find any of that material. Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I come up with when I search those titles:

"No results found" when searching "Paul Michael's Right Pattern For Profits" on The Sunday Telegraph
27 articles on current events when searching "PML group" on the Daily Telegraph but no mention of Peter Werth
In searching the book "Football and Accelerated Culture: This Modern Sporting Life" I found what reads like fluff name-check mentions of his brand, "Peter Werth long sleeve knitted polo (often in burgundy). Manchester's Ferries had been wearing Peter Werth with the thin hoops for years. It just seemed to complement the wedge hairstyle of the rest of the costume. This seems like it is about the athletes not the designer.
In searching the book "Football Hooliganism, Fan Behaviour and Crime: Contemporary Issues" I come up with exactly the same fluffy words as above, "Peter Werth long sleeve knitted polo (often in burgundy). Manchester's Ferries had been wearing Peter Werth with the thin hoops for years. It just seemed to complement the wedge hairstyle of the rest of the costume.
In searching "Designer Chic on the Street" in the Dorset Echo, I come up with "Your search has returned 0 results."
I can't access the Stafford Post at all.
When searching the "Isle of Wight County Press" for "Trivial Ideas for Men" in 1999, I come up with "Your search has returned 0 results."
When searching for "Better Times in Store as HoF Stands Still" on the "Evening Standard" I come up with "No Results".

Maybe because I am in the US and perhaps you are in the UK? Links would be really helpful! Netherzone (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. I suggest accessing the paper directly for the date given, and going to the page number provided rather than trying to duplicate search hits. You probably will have better luck. Or just search for "Peter Werth" on the given day rather than typing in the article title. These all cropped up just searching for "Peter Werth". Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Scorer

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails nbio. Reliable sources don't discuss this lawyer in any depth, they only provide his commentary about other people. The article itself reflects this fact, most of it is just a bunch of "he said x", "he criticized y", "he represented z", there is very little to say about him. It would be better to have an article about the events he was involved in, if they are notable. This article was deleted twice. V. S. Video (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and United Kingdom. V. S. Video (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources in the article are mere mentions and/or one-line quotes. One exception is a few paragraphs of quotes in The guardian. However, I do not find sources about Scorer other than author and organization member bios. Lamona (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found a Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/oct/20/starmer-grooming-gang-inquiry-left-in-turmoil-after-two-survivors-quit-panel a piece in the Critic: https://thecritic.co.uk/the-law-is-failing-grooming-victims/ and the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68227540 Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, none of these are about him. The Guardian and BBC are mentions in sources about something else, with short quotes. Quotes by him are not about him. The Critic is an article by him, which is not a source about him. Lamona (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is coverage of cases he is involved in, and he gets quoted in those articles. The coverage is not directly about him or particularly significant. Notability of the cases does not extend to the lawyer per WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. After a review of available sources online, I did not find anything that covers him directly and in-depth, as required by WP:SIGCOV. Jcgaylor (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Varney

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

unnotable football player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Weren't Barnet playing in League Two in 2006? According to Soccerbase he played for two minutes as a substitute in a match on January 21, 2006. I set up the squad list (as I did for a few teams early in my Wiki existence) on November 8, 2004 but it would appear he didn't play until then. Bobo . 21:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:FOOTY seems to have been sunsetted, in favor of WP:NSPORT. The first says any appearance in a national league gives notability, while the latter says he needs significant coverage, which he doesn't have. Which is it? TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the latter. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then based on the current criteria. My preference would be to redirect to the list of players for his most notable club, but there isn't one - only Category:Ebbsfleet United F.C. players. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Sunsetted" mean? Please tell me! I don't understand such a word! ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't see any possibility for a redirect. Excelse (talk) 05:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Could redirect to 2005–06 Barnet F.C. season but that doesn't exist... Giant Snowman 09:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article may face notability issues anyway if notability cannot be established. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jeanne Bender

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

Contested PROD. Original rationale: "Commons upload history (of Emilydaniel, the primary but not initial author) suggests undisclosed paid editing. Sources in this article may not meet Wikipedia's requirements, especially considering that entries on this author have already been deleted on Simple and Wikidata, the latter of which has a comically low and spam-prone notability criteria." The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Wisconsin. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 17:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for authors (WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG). Jeanne Bender’s work has received significant independent coverage in multiple reliable publications, including *Language Magazine*, *Norway Today*, *Woman’s World*, and *Forbes México*. Several of her books have also been professionally reviewed by *Kirkus Reviews*, a respected source for literary critique.

Her recognition by the New Zealand Literacy Association and her involvement with Reading Is Fundamental further demonstrate her notability and contribution to children’s literacy and education.

The article has been written in a neutral, verifiable, and well-sourced manner, and I welcome further improvements from other editors to ensure it continues to meet Wikipedia’s standards. Emilydaniel (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The three book reviews cited ([16] [17] [18]) are all from the Kirkus Indie program, which means that they are paid reviews and are not usable for establishing notability. The piece in Language Magazine has no byline and appears to be a promotional spot, and the piece in Norway Today is an interview. The piece in Woman's World is labelled as "contributor content" and is blatantly promotional. While the site claims that all contributor content is reviewed by the Woman's World editorial staff, I would regard this as a similar case to WP:FORBESCON. Nothing here qualifies towards WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About the byline-less piece, see the Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/FAQ:
Are reliable sources required to name the author?

No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement.

This article: https://www.proquest.com/openview/5ba419a44791100d0b90c03b98c7ffb1/1 is written by an editor at the publishing house and might make a good comparison for whether any sources have copied from a press release. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing I agree with you of course that the lack of a byline doesn't necessarily make a source non-independent, but I think from context it's pretty clear that this piece is not an independent source. The site in question publishes most of their other original stories with a byline, so it's not that this is an outlet that just doesn't use bylines in general. The site also has a contact address for press release submissions. Reading the source itself, I find it very, very difficult to imagine it being anything other than a press release (Jeanne Bender is passionate about providing interesting, forward-thinking books for everyone. Her priority is to cultivate stories with terminology that can be both challenging and familiar., It is available from all major distributors including Follett, Ingram, and Baker & Taylor., Bender’s intention is to provide education and excitement for readers. She aims to inspire children to pursue their passion for literature and a desire to “continue reading.”) MCE89 (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't all news agencies have an e-mail address for press releases? I clicked on half a dozen "News" articles, and I didn't actually see any bylines. (But maybe that's because I'm running NoScript.)

We all have our ideas of what makes a credible source, and many of us want "serious" sources for Wikipedia. But leaving our personal preferences aside, there's a market for enthusiastic, even gushy content, and independent sources can't be identified by tone alone. See, e.g., any aspirational/luxury magazine. Consider travel guides, which have to ration their superlatives so they don't run out before the end of the book. Think about how many sports games are deemed "the most important game of the season". It's just part of the genre for some subjects, and I suggest that it may well be part of the genre for book reviews aimed at special education teachers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most news agencies accept press releases, but most don't prominently advertise that they welcome them. That "resources" section of the Language Magazine website also includes things that are unambiguously press releases, e.g. [19] is a republishing of this press release [20], and [21] is a republishing of this press release [22], and several that are just straightforwardly advertising [23] [24] [25] [26]. We might just have to agree to disagree here — it's not impossible that you're right and an independent journalist wrote the piece, but I find it very, very unlikely (especially given that we know this author has paid for other publicity, e.g. the Kirkus Indie reviews). MCE89 (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Jeanne Bender is named in the abstract of this EBSCOE journal article. I don't have access, but it is possible this might be WP:SIGCOV. The PROQUEST article from Texas Library Journal seems like it is independent and would count as one source. I agree that the other sources seem like press releases or puffery and should be excluded as evidence of notability.4meter4 (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the Texas Library Journal article. It's very heavily based on quotes from the author and her editor, and it says The Lindie Lou Adventure Series, from Pina Publishing in Seattle, was proud to be a Bronze sponsor at the [Texas Library Association] conference. The Texas Library Association is the publisher of the Texas Library Journal, and the piece is really mostly about reporting on their own conference while noting Bender's participation in it as their sponsor. Things like Educators learned all about the series and its educational connections... make me think the piece is really more about promoting their conference to authors who might be interested in being future sponsors. MCE89 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I think being featured as a speaker at a state convention for educators lends some notability to the author, so I'm inclined to count this as one piece of independent significant coverage. However, this is just one piece of evidence, and I go by the rule of three. So as of yet, we are at one confirmed source, and one possible source which is not three. If nothing more comes forward, I do think deletion is the best choice. I did see in another google scholar article (which was an interview so not independent) that she was a speaker at a convention in New Zealand. I get the impression that she has had some success, and this is someone approaching notability who isn't yet quite there.4meter4 (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Probably TOOSOON. I tried a search on Common Sense Media as she is a kids writer [27], nothing comes up. We just don't have enough to show notability. The other Kirkus reviews are as explained, not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This [28] appears to be an interview, but it's still only one source. I just don't think we have enough for AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's an accessible PDF version on Google of that EBSCO source ("The Joy of Words" by Callan Goodall) that you and 4meter4 have mentioned. I'm not going to link to it because I'm not certain the site has the rights to host it, but it should be the only result if you Google "callan goodall" "jeanne bender". Unfortunately I don't think it helps at all in establishing notability here. MCE89 (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This needs to be stubified. Some sources are good, but some, like Forbes, are garbage. Bearian (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Jones (football commentator)

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

Fails WP:BIO. Jones has really nice coverage by BBC, plus I found this probably unaffiliated profile. But nothing else. I checked Gnews, Gbooks, ProQuest, Newspapers.com. Don't confuse him with other Tony Jones: journalist, evangelist, and american football player :) —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Sports, Football, and England. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radio News Hub

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

WP:BEFORE reveals only primary sources. Fails WP:NCORP. SpragueThomson^talk 20:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. SpragueThomson^talk 20:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fairly large news provider and would pass WP:GNG. Sources are reported by a journal rather than by the company itself. This is Paul (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost every single source is from Radio Today, which counts as combined 1 source. I am also not sure if that is a primary source. The article on Prolific London might have worked but I am getting 404 error on it.Darkm777 (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prolific London now has an archived url. This is Paul (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any solid secondary sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: for the same reasons as stated by This is Paul. Rillington (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The sourcing isn't there. The prolificlondon.co.uk is only one source, and we need multiple sources. I am essentially making an WP:IAR argument here. Given that hundreds of radio stations in the UK use their services its a significant media outlet. I fail to see the benefit to the public not covering this topic. That said... I don't think anyone can honestly claim a WP:GNG or WP:ORG pass. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merseyside Nighthawks

AfDs for this article:

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

This team seems to be non-notable. I removed most of the uncited information and was only able to find a single secondary source that covers the team's history, and it only gives a very brief summary. The team's website no longer exists, and I don't know if Liverpool Echo is even a reliable source. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and England. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some sources found. [29][30] NotJamestack (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some sources [31][32][33][34] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by both above. Question though, how come you both only commented and did not !vote to Keep then? Iljhgtn (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the sourcing is marginal, in fact. Yes there are sources but are they independent (i.e. not generated by press releases?) Is there the depth in these to write an article? On balance I am falling towards keep, mostly because there is WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a large number of years. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There doesn't appear to be an outright consensus yet. A discussion regarding the questions asked by @Sirfurboy above would be beneficial to establish a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Denman

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

Bass player that does not seem to be notable outside of membership of Sade. Prod declined due to many incoming links from Sade related articles. I think the Bass Player source is strong, but I cannot find additional sourcing that contributes notability to push the subject past WP:GNG. Mbdfar (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, United Kingdom, and England. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 02:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I partially stubified this article, and it has so many incoming links. He's had a notable career both before and after being part of Sade's band. The article needs a lot of work, but it's not a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of those links are from Template:Sade. This article needs sources, not just cleanup. Mbdfar (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I count 19 direct (non-template) links to this article from other mainspace articles. This should not be dismissed. ~Kvng (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found four of which that are outside of the umbrella of Sade. Three where the subject has been simply placed on a list, typically unsourced, and one trivial mention in prose. Mbdfar (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'll leave it at delete. Article feels too 'soapboxy' for me. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 23:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
@CREditzWiki, "Soapboxy" sounds like a fixable issue. Do you have a specific WP:DEL-REASON. ~Kvng (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck it through since I do not. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 02:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC):[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 East ernsa hara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 03:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist meets borderline notability in my opinion per significant coverage in several sources. Article needs removing excessive material, yes, but this is not a reason for deletion. Silvymaro (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete He has worked with Sade among other notable acts and was apparently an integral part of creating her sound, so I want to keep the article but I can't find enough reliable secondary sources in searches to add to the page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sade (band). I can find no significant and reliable media coverage of his early band Pride, his childhood inspirations are non-noatble, and his other band Sweetback is a Sade side project that has some coverage but not enough to separate it from the main band. Therefore he has not achieved his own independent notability outside of Sade, nor does he need to because he has had a robust career with them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has enough notability in my opinion. Mag2k (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I see no consensus but lots of opinions so let's make one more try to see if we can come to a rough agreement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is a good argument here that Sweetback is its own separate band. It has its own news coverage away from Sade (such as [35], [36], ); although it is often lumped in scholarly works like here. Some of the newspaper sources I added had lengthy focus on Paul Denman. Overall I think there's enough here for a stand alone article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4meter4 (talk • contribs) 28 October 2025
- Is that not the same situation as with Sade and the current AFD? Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and those sources are not significant coverage of the subject being discussed. If Sweetback is found to be independently notable, WP:MUSICBIO may apply, but that is not evident or established.Mbdfar (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4 this is at least enough to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Giles (British politician)

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

Proposed WP:PROD by 86.186.127.41 for the following reason: Under notability guidelines on self-promotion and publicity. Page is remarkably detailed for a very minor local councillor. As the article creator (not associated with the subject in any way, shape or form) I argued that there was sustained coverage in national media over more than one event, but to be honest I am on the fence on this one as the media coverage seems to be based on a degree of sensationalism. Opening up to a wider discussion for possible deletion. – GnocchiFan (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. jolielover♥talk 18:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He ran with Galloway's Workers Party and did remarkably well, he was also Galloway's campaign manager in the Rochdale by-election that they won. He is currently Chief of Staff to Ayoub Khan. This may explain some of the media coverage that would otherwise be a little odd for a local councillor. I am also on the fence -- he does have media coverage but I am not confident it meets WP:POLITICIAN Aesurias (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. The subject of the article is notable as a political consultant (adviser to 4 out of the 6 independent MPs who are directors of the legal entity behind Your Party, and two-time campaign manager for George Galloway) and activist (co-founder and ex-deputy leader of the Kingston Independent Residents Group political party), rather than merely as a councillor.

There has been coverage of his activities in reliable independent sources which is by no means restricted to the November 2023 episode (the one instance of coverage which can be described as "based on a degree of sensationalism"). He was the subject of a separate article in The Telegraph in 2024 and his views have been quoted by The Guardian - this type of coverage goes beyond the expected treatment for an insignificant local politician.

I see no self-promotional content in the article but if the proposer is willing to point that out, then I will gladly review.

As for the suggestion that the article is too detailed, I was the editor who made the only significant expansion to the article since its creation to date and I would be happy to be challenged over the encyclopedic value of anything I added. Other than birth and education, the additions cover the subject's public activity. The article before my additions was rather selective and consisted of a constellation of key facts without adding up to a biography; it mentioned Coombe Monthly but not Radio Sputnik/RT and only the one successful instance of campaign management, thus diminishing the extent of the subject's association with George Galloway and the Workers Party. The one potentially sensationalistic piece of coverage had already been in place - I agree that at three sentences' length it can appear slightly excessive and could reasonably be reduced to the first sentence. The proposer, who has introduced the said passage, has made no effort to cut this "sensationalistic" passage, so it is strange for them to invoke it now as an argument for deletion.

The argument that the article is too long or too detailed is disingenuous - its extent is in line with the number of reliable sources that exist. Yes, it is no longer a stub, but enough to compare it with the size of George Galloway's article to see that it is not excessive. We surely do not aim at keeping articles at stub status on Wikipedia. VampaVampa (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion There are 2 sources in the article which constitute substantial coverage and focus on him himself by RSPs. However, they both come from the Telegraph. A single RSP writing about him does not meet notability criteria in my opinion. This could move to draft space if there is an expectation Giles is to play a part in the new Corbyn/Sultana party, but keeping it in mainspace because of this would be wrong and potentially in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Regards, Quinby (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giles was a member of the organising committee and the ops team that worked on launching Your Party, so WP:CRYSTAL does not apply - he is already involved. VampaVampa (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The sources with coverage of Giles that is in-depth are predominantly based on interview text and are largely not sufficiently transformative enough to be independent. Those that don't involve interview text are largely about other topics and are only tangentially connected to Giles. There is not a single source that is both clearly independent (ie not based on direct quotes but having transformative independent journalist analysis and commentary) and containing in-depth coverage. Also the few sources where he is the primary subject are all related to a threatening letter which I think should be discredited as trivial local politics per WP:NOTNEWS.4meter4 (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a point of factual accuracy, the article profiling Giles in The Telegraph is not related to the threatening letter. He was the primary subject of a brief BBC national news entry and featured prominently in another. The RSP coverage is admittedly not in depth but it is extensive and shows that Giles has been active in multiple fields. His primary claim to notability is arguably as a national-level campaign manager and political adviser, secondary as minor party leader, and only after that as a local politician. I believe advisers will not normally be profiled in depth in the way officeholders are. VampaVampa (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under WP:NPOL and WP:TOOSOON. NPOL essentially says that local politicians mostly don't get an entry unless something remarkable happens to them which gets lots of RS. This has not (yet) happened to the subject but given the subject's age then it's quite possible it will happen in the future. At which point WP:CRYSTALBALL applies. The sourcing in the article so far does give an argument under WP:BASIC but this any BLP / ANYBIO means we need more than fronted up interviews, we need in depth profiles from top dollar RS media. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with others, doesn't meet WP:NPOL and not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly meets WP:GNG, though it seems my opinion will be drowned out by others who think local councillors are automatically not notable. The author isn't claiming he meets WP:NPOL. Giles has quite clearly been the main focus of, or has had significant coverage in, a large number of news articles, both national and local, as a result of him being very active, ambitious and controversial from an early age in politics. These are already referenced in the article. Sionk (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of LGBTQ+ studies-related deletion discussions. VampaVampa (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom – this has undergone significant expansion by VampaVampa (thank you!) since I nominated this – whoever closes this probably should take this into account. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, the nominator pointed out that the article has undergone big changes since its nomination. So, hopefully participants can re-review the article and its sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not believe any sources truly are independent and in-depth profiles of Giles, even following the expansion. Quinby (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not aware of a requirement that the subject of an article must be profiled in depth. Under WP:BASIC it is enough that the coverage in multiple reliable independent sources be substantial (rather than trivial), and there is plenty of that. Your definition of "independent" as "not based on direct quotes but having transformative independent journalist analysis and commentary" introduces excessive standards compared to WP:BASIC, which merely calls for sources independent from each other and from the subject. VampaVampa (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that the profiles from The Tab ([37]), Kingston Courier ([38]) and coverage from The Daily Telegraph ([39] + [40]) all contribute and sufficiently satisfy WP:BASIC. I believe that the interview sources contain enough substantive commentary to provide WP:INDEPENDENT coverage.Katzrockso (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: unclear consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is definitely enough SIGCOV here from prominent local and national organizations to meet our notability guidelines for people. Just because his office is too low for NPOL doesn't mean he can't meet NBASIC, which he does. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but feels borderline: There is a lot of sources in this article, some of which were entirely irrelevant. Strongest sources are Kingston Courier and The Times. Lots of brief mentions that add no detail. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the table. Some of the judgments on SIGCOV are debatable. While depth is wanting in it, the Telegraph piece is dedicated to Giles and announces his main claim to national prominence. List format aside, Prometheus offers some specifics on Giles's involvement in Your Party's formation. If we are going to count sentences, then New Statesman has more on Giles than The Times. I would also dispute that intending to contest a national by-election result in court is trivial,[41] or that directly asserting Giles's key role in Galloway's circle is not significant coverage.[42] VampaVampa (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on New Statesman and Telegraph, and edited the table.
I disagree on Prometheus Journal: I doubt that this is a reliable source and I don't see consensus on WP for using this.
Contesting the by-election is really about Galloway, not about Giles (who gets one quote in the story). This is not direct, in-detail coverage.
The Guardian has one sentence about Giles: Though not a Workers party member, another key figure in Galloway’s orbit is James Giles, a London councillor who leads the Kingston Independent Residents Group and who was his campaign manager in Rochdale. and then a quote (primary coverage). That's it. It's not WP:SIGCOV.

— 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the edits.

Re Prometheus you may want to take into account the discussion here, which seems to amount to a local consensus that it is a reliable source.
The one sentence from The Guardian contains four separate factual claims, the first two of which are not found elsewhere. A brief but meaty mention.

VampaVampa (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Kingston Courier			[43] about relationships to KIRG, Galloway. [44] also about Galloway ties with some secondary reporting. [45] references age, and sources prior coverage being called "appalling little child". [46] is passing coverage and shouldn't be counted.	✔ Yes
The Times 2024 on Galloway			Seven sentences about Giles about Gaza letter, Ahmadiyya leaflet, age	✔ Yes
Telegraph advising independent MPs			Current events on advising MPs and secondary coverage of Gaza email	✔ Yes
New Statesman profile of Yvonne Tracey			Direct secondary coverage concerning Ahmadiyya leaflet for >5 sentences	✔ Yes
Surrey Comet			~ [47] on teenage journalism is not just quotes from the subject. [48] seems more like an interview and should be counted less. [49] is routine coverage.	~ Partial
South West Londoner	~		~ [50] is mostly an interview (primary, not secondary) with perhaps two point about past deeds (which may come from the primary source). [51] should not count as SIGCOV: one sentence of fact and some quotes.	~ Partial
Guardian "George Galloway targets Angela Rayner’s seat..."			Brief mention	✘ No
Guardian: "Galloway win makes Workers party..."			Brief mention	✘ No
Guardian: "Labour loses four seats..."				✘ No
Three sources on ceasefire letter [52] [53] [54]			Reflects play-by-play but not a lot of depth here	✘ No
BBC live blog mention: Will we have a 19-year-old MP? 2019				✘ No
Royal Holloway Tab			Appears to be mostly sourced from an interview and very short.	✘ No
Times Batley and Spen by-election			brief mention	✘ No
Independent Batley and Spen by-election			trivial mention	✘ No
Evening Standard Galloway Batley and Spen			trivial mention	✘ No
Standard: MPs on Gaza			passing reference	✘ No
Guardian: Workers Party			passing reference and quote	✘ No
Guardian: Labour loses seats over Palestine			passing mention	✘ No
Middle East Eye			election results only	✘ No
LBC on Yvonne Tracey			passing mention	✘ No
Politics Home			passing mention	✘ No
LGA blog				✘ No
Prometheus Journal		Not used with frequency as a source, poor backlink rating.	mention in list	✘ 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}}.

keep per Pacific Depthes. Meets basic criteria and not unlikely if deleted article would need to be created again with many same sources soon enough if it was deleted as he’s involved in politics at a national not just local level. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I completely disagree that the four sources at the top are WP:SECONDARY. These are contemporaneous reporting of a current event that are substantially interview based. SECONDARY coverage by definition has to be time delayed (ie not occuring at or near the time of an event), and it doesn't involve interviews. Those top four articles are all WP:PRIMARY sources.4meter4 (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That secondary sources are per definition "one step removed from an event" does not necessarily entail any chronological distance. It is enough that they are one step removed from the journalist's primary sources, which may include participants in the event. In other words, the description would be a primary source if any of the people involved had authored it. I strongly disagree with the suggestion that professional journalism produces primary sources. VampaVampa (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's false. Articles principally built from investigative research and interviews in the present or PRIMARY. See this university website which describes when newspaper reporting becomes SECONDARY: https://libguides.ufv.ca/HistoricalNews4meter4 (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

England

List of wedding guests of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank

Stella March

Modus Cup

Eva Zuk

Oxx

Born in the U.S.A. Live: London 2013

Ellie Costello

Mark Armstrong (astronomer)

Acumen (magazine)

Crowcroft

David Purcell

Glenn Ellison

Channelcast

Jack Clark (AI policy expert)

Dan Cohn-Sherbok

Peter Werth

Richard Scorer

Alex Varney

Jeanne Bender

Tony Jones (football commentator)

Radio News Hub

Merseyside Nighthawks

Paul Denman

James Giles (British politician)

Mornflake

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also