Points of interest related to England on Wikipedia:
Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment

WP:DELSORT/ENGLAND

Deletion SortingProject (talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts .mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}v t e

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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to England.

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[edit]

George John Seaton

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

No evidence of notability. All the significant sources dealing with the topic are written by the subject. All others simply reference background story and not the subject. Fails WP:GNG . An earlier version was draftified because it lacked any credible claim to notability, so the same authored simply created this new version in mainspace without improving notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Africa, France, England, and South America. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnikrishnan Nair Mannath

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

Non notable person. Only two references are give. One is to his own website. The other is to Money 2.0 Conference, which after checking the speakers show he was featured there. However, no real idea if that confers notability. There may be a WP:COI in that the creator, Unnikrishnannair1, may be involved in the company. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I find no news sources and only two hits in Gsearch, this feels very PROMO. I don't see enough coverage to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, United Arab Emirates, Delhi, Kerala, Rajasthan, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no secondary source coverage and the article reads extremely promotional.Sk1728 (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There could be COI as the user created account 8 days ago and he created the account only to create this page (16 edits, totally on this article only) and there are no any reliable sources as far as i can see. TheSlumPanda (talk) 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Robert Holborn

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

In the Gutenberg ebook A History of the Administration of the Royal Navy, he is mentioned just once, confirming that he and others "were in 1548 granted pensions on the Exchequer of fourpence a day ‘in consideration of their long and good service'". The next sentence then notes that James Baker was "the only master shipwright whose reputation outlived his generation". That's about it for Holborn; in fact, the article says very little about him specifically. Hardly enough for WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Engineering, Transportation, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North herts premier pool league

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

Article covering a local pool league, no sources, orphan article. Not been updated since 2012, not even correct title format have no idea how this article has slipped through the net.--ParkingTheBus (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cue sports, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. No nonability claioms, no in-depth coverage. - Altenmann >talk 01:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources that show notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's nothing available to use for sourcing this, doesn't seem close to having a chance at passing WP:GNG. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Kirby

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have played only minor roles as an actress. Fails WP:NACTRESS and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David White (artist)

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

Does not appear to satisfy GNG or WP:ARTIST. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:GNG. I am only seeing one Art UK image and a few brief local articles on Newspapers.com. Curiocurio (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NARTIST. Not even close. Looking for sources would be like looking for a needle in a haystack, because he has such a common name. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ky-Kidd

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

Does not appear to satisfy GNG requirements, nor the guideline for creative professionals at WP:ARTIST. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Roberts (actor)

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

Only 1 notable role a decade ago. This information could be added to the Kenneth Erskine page instead if it is a fit. Moritoriko (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Moritoriko (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kenneth Erskine#Documentaries: Since the article doesn't meet full NACTOR, the best option is to redirect to the above—the article about the role he played—the documentaries section where it was listed! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that is a much better idea o7. I'm new so I don't know how to do that. Moritoriko (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested as a good compromise. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Gilbert (journalist)

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

I literary found nothing for the topic's existence here. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, United Kingdom, and England. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed with nominator - I've been unable to find evidence the subject meets GNG requirements. Please ping me if anything significant turns up. ResonantDis_tortion 19:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low Pavement, Chesterfield

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

I have not been able to find significant coverage of this road in reliable sources. The sources in the article are listings of individual buildings, but there's no evidence those buildings meet WP:NBUILDING. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and England. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Low Pavement is mentioned in various directories from the 19th Century, two of which I've just added, not to mention 5 (technically 6) different listed buildings on the small street. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listings in directories are not significant coverage, and having listed buildings doesn't establish notability of the street that they're on. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a couple of books that noted during the 1970s, the town council intended to demolish the buildings on the street, however decided the buildings together were considered to be of 'township merit' which is why the buildings are all listed around that time period. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources seem to be talking more about the neighborhood overall, rather than Low Pavement, which is mentioned but not described in detail. The false bomb threat is a minor aspect of the street and doesn't contribute to the street's notability, nor is a bomb threat in itself notable per WP:1E. Additionally, while Chesterfield Market is likely notable, that doesn't mean Low Pavement is notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added another notable event, the then Prince Charles and Princess Diana opening The Pavements Shopping Center on the street in November 1981, another surely notable event. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There need to be sources showing that the street is notable, which means that it has significant coverage in reliable sources. The fact that an event occurred on the street does not mean that the street itself is notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13 Grade II listed buildings, 2 Grade II listed Light posts, one of the oldest open-air markets in the country. the current king of England opening an indoor marketplace, and a recent bomb threat, I think that's plenty enough to prove the street's significance, but I'm of course happy to let others decide on this. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The number of historic buildings along this street show clear evidence of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We still need SIGCOV to keep an article, rather than merging or some other ATD. Have you found any? voorts (talk/contributions) 15:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I'm not sure the bomb threat or the royal visit (both of which have happened in lots of places) contribute much to the Notability!, the listed buildings do. The buildings themselves meet WP:NBUILDING, by virtue of their listed status. The street is in a conservation area, [1] (see pages 27-8), which gives it both status and protection, and it won an award, [2]. Overall, I think there's enough. KJP1 (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited: having listed buildings and being in a conservation area does not make a street notable. By that logic, almost every street in every city would be notable because there's always something historic on most streets and many streets are in some type of designated arwa. Additionally, the inner city revitalization project won an award, not the street itself. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, almost every street in every city would be notable because there's always something historic on most streets and many streets are in some type of designated arwa. That is very clearly not true. The vast majority of streets, even in countries with very long histories of built heritage like the UK, do not have a single listed building on them. And you're misunderstanding the argument. A street isn't inheriting notability from the historic buildings along it. The historic buildings along it shows that it is historic and therefore notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A street isn't inheriting notability from the historic buildings along it. The historic buildings along it shows that it is historic and therefore notable. That's circular: the street is notable because it is historic, it is historic because it has historic buildings, and because it has historic buildings it's notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts I'm really struggling to see your argument with this, a street becomes notable because of the buildings and features on the street, or events taking place on the street, there's not one piece of asphalt/concrete/cobblestone on the planet that is notable solely for existing. As @KJP1 noted above, The street is in a conservation area, which gives it both status and protection, and it won an award. Overall, I think there's enough 13 Listed buildings on one street, the notable market, I really cannot see your argument for this not being notable.. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is becoming rather philosophical. For me, a street covers the buildings that stand on it, it defines the area in which they stand. It can't just be the strip of tarmac down the middle. Queen Anne's Gate, which I'd agree is more notable than this, is important because it has a stack of Grade I listed buildings, in which notable people lived, worked, socialised, died. I don't think anyone would argue to AfD that, and the same argument holds true here. KJP1 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've summed it up perfectly there. @KJP1 Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a street becomes notable because of the buildings and features on the street, or events taking place on the street, there's not one piece of asphalt/concrete/cobblestone on the planet that is notable solely for existing That is incorrect. Notability is not defined by whether a subject (here, a street) is related to another notable subject (that is what I meant by notability is not inherited) A subject is notable for the purposes of Wikipedia if it meets the WP:GNG. The GNG defines a subject as notable if it has receiced significant coverage in relaivle sources.

Here, Low Pavement, Chesterfield, is not notable just because there may be notable buildings on the street (and as I've noted before, under the subject specific notability guideline for buildings, even being listed isn't enough: you still need to show signifcant coverage).

To use your example, Queen Anne's Gate is notable because a lot of people have written about it as a subject. If people have written significant coverage of Low Pavement, Chesterfield, then it would be notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant increase in body and references since deletion request. Enough refs in Historic England to warrant a stub for the street. Other citations are added bonus. -Bogger (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment

This is not a full source assessment. I've already explained why the fact that a potentially notable shopping mall exists on the street and the fact that royals visited the shopping mall to open it doesn't establish notability. Likewise, a bomb threat at a local pub doesn't establish that the street that the pub is on is notable. Moreover, there is no SNG that states that having several listed buildings on a street establishes notability. If editors would like there to be one, they should suggest that, but we can't invent SNGs to fit our preferences during AfD discussions. To summarize the below, there are two sources, both by the same author, that discuss one aspect of the Low Pavement (its preservation), albeit in the broader context of revitalization of the area. I would not oppose merging some of the information here to Chesterfield, Derbyshire, or in creating an article for The Pavements, since that seems to be notable. I think it's a stretch to say that the street on its own is notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Derbyshire Times			The source states, in full: "The name Low Pavement simply refers to the road on the lower side of the Market Place – the ‘new market’ laid out in the 1190s to replace Chesterfield’s original market place to the north of the parish church. What is now High Street was known as High Pavement until the 19th century."	✘ No
Bagshaw		?	This is a list of businesses on the street from 1846.	✘ No
White			This is a list of businesses on the street from 1852.	✘ No
Bradley			~ Discusses preservation of Low Pavement as part of a broader revitalisation plan.	~ Partial
Sadler			The page linked to reprints an old advertisement from a business on Low Pavement.	✘ No
Picture the Past			This source is a photograph.	✘ No
Chesterfield Online		?	This is a list of businesses on the street.	✘ No
Smith and Sykes			This is a travel guide that reviews some businesses on the street.	✘ No
Marsh	From the website's about page: "Destination Chesterfield delivers a number of marketing campaigns that are helping to improve the economic prosperity of Chesterfield by promoting it as a contemporary destination to inward investors and supporting existing businesses."		The source merely notes that wosmething called the "Eco Hub" is located on Low Pavement, but does not discuss Low Pavement at all.	✘ No
Appraisal	? Appears to be an appraisal for the Town Council, but the authorship is unclear.	? There is no indication of fact-checking.	Contains significant coverage describing the street.	? Unknown
European Heritage Awards			This indicates that the Town Revitalisation won an award, but it does not discuss Low Pavement in any significant detail.	✘ No
Chesterfield Market	By the Chesterfield Borough Council.	? Unknown whether this is fact-checked.	Low Pavement isn't even mentioned on this page.https://www.chesterfield.gov.uk/explore-chesterfield/markets-and-market-hall.aspx#:~:text=Chesterfield%20Market%20is%20one%20of,and%20events%20all%20year%20round.	✘ No
Revitalising Chesterfield Market	Govenment website.	?	Regarding Low Pavement, the source states in full: "The re-siting of market stalls currently located in New Square and on Low Pavement into a single market ground of 100 stalls in Market Square – creating a more defined and vibrant market area. The area will also include a flexible events space."	✘ No
Derbyshire Victoria County History Trust			Low Pavement appaers on the page twice, both in captions to photographs.	✘ No
Bradley 2			~ Discusses preservation of Low Pavement as part of a broader revitalisation plan.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Desmond Fernandes

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

Working author but doesn't appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR / WP:GNG. Unref blp. Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus

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

I'm a major Half Man Half Biscuit fan, as anyone who can work out where I got my username from will realise. I've created several dozen ((R from song))s to the band's albums. I didn't mark any as ((R with possibilities)) because I didn't think any had them. This album track and crowd favourite is no different, much as I've enjoyed it for nearly 40 years. The sources are WP:REFBOMBINGs of track listings and gig reviews. None suffices to meet WP:NSONG.

Redirect to Back in the DHSS as ((R from song)) while keeping the categories.

I'm bringing this article to AfD rather than WP:BOLDly WP:BLARing it because it's been around since 2009. I haven't notified the article creator because they were WP:BLOCKed in 2018 for reasons which at passing glance look irrelevant to this discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. I love it, but it's just an album track with nothing in particular to merit a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. I know this song but wouldn't expect it to have its own entry outside the album page. Orange sticker (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Book Collective

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

The page may not meet Wikipedia's notability; perhaps - redirect to Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs BoraVoro (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Museums and libraries, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @BoraVoro for your suggestion to delete this page. Maybe to share some details around why I thought it might be good to have a separate page on the Open Book Collective - this Open Access platform and community has been developed out of the Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs project, but as the COPIM project has ended and the Open Book Collective itself has matured and now is its own legal entity, I thought it might make more sense to have a separate entry for that initiative. I agree that the current state of the page is still rudimentary, but my hope is that this will be soo growing to include more detailed information around key collaborations, etc. in the space of non-profit OA book publishing, so would be grateful if this could be given space here on Wikipedia going forward. Thanks so much for your consideration, and all best, Flavoursofopen (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you @Flavoursofopen for your passion and work. I'm not entirely in favor of deletion at this point. I am open to changing or withdrawing my vote. BoraVoro (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Metal Apocalypse

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

It's just someone's website/blog hosted on Bandcamp. Neither source is reliable independent significant coverage, nor can I find such. Notability not established. Reywas92^Talk 14:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Textbook non-notability 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 16:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO. I can only find links to the facebook page and other social media for the organization. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just a random blog. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Cope[edit]

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

As noted in WP:NPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider borough councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage. Likewise, being a candidate for national office doesn't normally meet WP:NPOL, absent substantial coverage in secondary sources, and I can find only routine local press coverage. Wikishovel (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and England. Wikishovel (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES, county-level legislators, including borough councilors in this context, are not presumed to be notable. However, exceptions may apply if they receive significant coverage as outlined in WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, which is not the case for this individual. Ckfasdf (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL. Bhivuti45 (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2024 (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.

Auspex International

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

All the coverage relates it to being set up by people from Cambridge Analytica following the scandal Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and England. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Went into voluntary liquidation in October 2023 according to documents filed at Companies House.[3]. No coverage found of this, so assuming this is the same company it suggests Auspex Int. isn't notable. Its website appears non-operational. Attracted some coverage in the wake of Cambridge Analytica: on its formation, BBC [4] and FT [5] Later coverage: Byline Times [6] The company is mentioned in a number of books relating to Cambridge Analytica. Possible redirect to Cambridge Analytica#Aftermath, if as looks likely, there is insufficient depth of coverage to pass WP:NCORP for a separate article. Rupples (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Markets.com

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT - lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Sourcing is poor: government databases and Forex websites, much of that trivial coverage such as personnel changes per WP:ORGTRIV. Overly promotional and unencyclopedic. AusLondonder (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, Websites, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Interviews, RP pieces and licensing documentation, don't help notability. I don't see anything outside of PR items in my searches. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phocas Software

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

Created by a single purpose editor. Looks like an advert, and the sourcing I found is mainly PR like stories. The industry recognition hardly adds to notability. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, England, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I cleaned up the article a bit, removed unsourced sections and primary sources. Company is covered by Gartner. The sources is a press release as Gartner reports are only available for a fee, but the fact that Gartner had covered them should be considered as one good citation. The company was also in Deloitte Technology Fast 50. In addition, The Australian Financial Review has 2 articles on them. Any COI issues should be addressed outside AFD.Bikerose (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of MPs for Colchester, 1885–1983

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

This information already exists in the Colchester (UK Parliament constituency) article which lists the MPs. I don't see why we should have an article listing the MPs of a constituency in a given period. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United Kingdom, and England. Owen× ☎ 10:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm effectively neutral - the list contains additional information not in the article, and the target article is unwieldy and merging back into that article may not be helpful, which makes me think it's a valid WP:SPLIT. At worst, though, this is a merge since the information in the list isn't duplicative. SportingFlyer T·C 11:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per below, to remove the year from the title and copy over lists from the constituency article. This is a valid split. SportingFlyer T·C 15:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge I don't see anything here that needs a stand-alone article. The short biographies are not found in any other list of MPs and I don't really see the need to keep them like this, but they can also be merged to the constituency article. Reywas92^Talk 14:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do we really need lists of MPs for every single constituency? Athel cb (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're potentially valid splits, we already have lists of MPs for each constituency and that is necessarily encyclopaedic information. If you look at the Colchester article, most of it is lists of the MPs and lists of election results, which are both encyclopaedic. Splitting the article into three might provide a better overview to the reader. SportingFlyer T·C 19:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because their are other lists on other constituencies does not mean that this article should not be deleted. Also as far as I'm aware, Colchester is the only constituency to have a seperate article listing all of the MPs, the other lists are appropriately included in the constituency articles and not split into seperate lists.

Having the lists of MPs in each election is a different matter entirely to listing the MPs in one constituency. A case could be made for including lists of MPs elected in particular regions or counties but having a list of MPs elected in a single constituency especially when that information could be included in the main article just seems like overcategorization. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You completely mis-understood my argument. The main article is 100,000 bytes. Most of it is election results and a complete list of MPs from 1295 to the present, with a brief interruption when the constituency was abolished. There is additional prose in the split list which helps provide context to the lists. The !voter I responded to essentially makes the argument the lists should also be deleted from the main article as well, which is ridiculous - historical lists of MPs are necessarily encyclopaedic information. Up-merging this would make the current article even larger. I honestly think the correct thing to do here from an editing perspective is to move this to List of MPs for Colchester and move the entire list of MPs to the list article as a valid WP:SPLIT, keeping only recent MPs on the main page. None of that is a WP:OSE argument, other than the fact it would not be the only list of MPs article on the website. The page size and the consitutency's lengthy history also mean it's not necessarily the case every constituency could be validly split. SportingFlyer T·C 11:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you meant lists as in standalone articles listing every MP, such as this one. I see your point and I now agree that the current article should be split and have a seperate list for MPs considering how old the constituency is and how large the current article is, however I think that this proposed article should include MPs from 1295 till present rather than including only MPs from 1885 till 1983, with the article being split into four sections (1295–1640, 1640–1885, 1885–1983, and 1983–present). GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I do not see the reason for limiting the years for this article. SportingFlyer T·C 13:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete as per SportingFlyer, assuming I've understood correctly, viz.: split all the lists of MPs out of the present Colchester (UK Parliament constituency) article, thereby reducing its bulk, to a new List of Colchester MPs article, and merge into it the contents of List of MPs for Colchester, 1885–1983, which can then be deleted.Ingratis (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the MPs are already listed in Colchester (UK Parliament constituency). Number 5 7 10:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trust AM

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

Even under the old, much looser guidance of WP:BCAST this type of internal carrier-current radio service wouldn't have made the cut without also passing GNG. Under WP:BCASTOUTCOMES it definitely needs to pass GNG, and there is nothing out there to suggest it does. Flip Format (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Medicine, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I disagree that it fails on notability issues as it covers a number of sites and has a history of broadcasting on AM rather than just as an internal carrier-current station. However, the article needs more references to fully secure its place on Wikipedia.Rillington (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northumberland Hospital Radio

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Medicine, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Stolli

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

Tagged for notability since 2016. No prose, but simply a list of credits which makes this akin to a WP:RESUME for an actor as opposed to encyclopedia entry. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Music, Theatre, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.I believe that this article is worthy of being kept. It has 12 different footnotes and would seem to, therefore be relevant. Also, Anna Stolli is mentioned by name in the online footnoted references. --Howard352 (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are mainly to self published and primary sources. We require independent secondary references to prove notability per WP:GNG. The few secondary references that are there only mention the actress briefly in cast lists, and do not address Stolli's work as an actress in detail as required by WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find significant coverage in independent sources.— Moriwen (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are many sources on the internet about her work, but none of them are independent sources unfortunately.Contributor892z (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayyur Girotra

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG, there are some announcements kind of sources, routine coverage and non-independent interview, but I fail to see any real independent SIGCOV about the person. Tehonk (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2024 (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/2024 March 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, England, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When I searched for this person on many places (like: Google, Wing, Yandex, and DuckDuckGo), I found many news articles. Based on that, the subject is clearly passing WP:THREE. The article can be tagged to improve current sourcing though. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please show that WP:THREE, simply saying there are WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a valid argument. Tehonk (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha'n why not. Here are your WP:THREE. 1, 2, 3. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 and 3 are just interviews so they are not independent. 2 could be OK. So I don't think this is passing THREE. I'll check the below sources later. Tehonk (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know 1 & 3 i gave are interviews but not everything in those interviews is solely from the subject. There's some independent text in there too, like the first paragraph. These sources are reliable and credible. Anyway, i found some additional sources that are secondary independent reliable that shows the subject's significance as a designer like [7], [8], [9] Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject appears to be a notable designer. He is the only person from South Asia selected to kick off New York's prestigious LGBTQ+ Pride 2024, and he is among the only 14 designers to exhibit at the French European Fashion Week, which gained a lot of media attention. [10][11], [12], [13], [14] Various leading media houses extensively covered him. [15]. Google News Search yielded lots of hits from reliable secondary sources passing WP:BASIC. Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, seeking some feedback on the sources brought to this discussion (and any others that can be mentioned). It's not sufficient to say that you did a search and found sources, you must share what they are.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided above, passes WP:BASIC.Sk1728 (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per above. Actual analysis of sources would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Sufficient sources provided above by Youknowwhoistheman and Wasilatlovekesy . Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Provident Association

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

Article created and continues to be edited by COI editor who removed PROD tag on the basis that "We are in the process of editing this page, but we need the copy to be authorised, which can not be done in the timescale that you have provided, it will be carried out soon,". The organisation lacks "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", as a result failing WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable business. Bhivuti45 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

England[edit]

George John Seaton

Unnikrishnan Nair Mannath

Robert Holborn

North herts premier pool league

Grace Kirby

David White (artist)

Paul Ky-Kidd

Marcus Roberts (actor)

Jon Gilbert (journalist)

Low Pavement, Chesterfield

Source assessment

Desmond Fernandes

Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus

Open Book Collective

Global Metal Apocalypse

Anna Cope[edit]

Auspex International

Markets.com

Phocas Software

List of MPs for Colchester, 1885–1983

Trust AM

Northumberland Hospital Radio

Anna Stolli

Mayyur Girotra

Western Provident Association

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also