Points of interest related to United Kingdom on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to the United Kingdom. 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:

1. 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.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding ((subst:delsort|United Kingdom|~~~~)) 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 the United Kingdom.

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 Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom/archive 2

See also:

• Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland

Scan for United Kingdom related AfDs Scan for United Kingdom related Prods Scan for United Kingdom related TfDs

The Movie Channel (British TV channel)

The Movie Channel (British TV channel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to be notable. I googled it, and found no reliable sources. Avishai11 (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep Please read WP:BEFORE comprehensively before attempting another nomination; 'it's not on Google' is by far not a proper rationale for deletion, especially for a network that predated that website. It also has a plausible redirect target so this isn't getting deleted. Nate • (chatter) 23:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kwaku Mills

Kwaku Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article a non-notable film actor. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV, he has only played minor roles in movies/series, some of which don't even credit him. The author seems very desperate to get this article up despite being declined in Draftspace and also placed an AFC template showing the article was approved when infact it was never approved. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United Kingdom. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Trivial coverage of his roles [1], in a list of other actors in the series. Only mentioned here [2] for a stage play and an interview for the play (behind a paywall, it's been archived here) [3]. I also would have done a PROD on this, not notable per our standards and a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is clearly a notable cast addition to a notable TV series. I have now added multiple reliable, independent sources that show he is one of the main characters. He appears in 'first look' imagery for the show, and as part of a group of 3 other actors announced as joining the series (who all have wikipedia entires) clearly suggesting his role as significant and noteworthy to the series.

I have added further sources that reference the stage plays mentioned. From a quick online search I can see he has clearly been in further stage productions, there are multiple reviews in reputable papers. I included these in a previous Draftspace article but was told by you that it seemed promotional, so I removed them.

I have removed mentions of his minor roles or any that don't credit him.

I must apologise for placing an AFC template on my previous draftspace article. I am new to all this and obviously still learning. I thought a move to mainspace was an action I was allowed to take. Once informed otherwise I removed it from mainspace.

I decided to delete my previous draft, and be bold and try to publish my first mainspace article. I would ask that you remember Wikipedia's guideline 'not to bite the newcomers'. Your claim that i seem 'very desperate' seems rather personal, and discouraging to a new editor. JodieGarcelle (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deserters from James II to William of Orange

List of deserters from James II to William of Orange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The principal source of this article is The Complete Peerage (2nd edition), pp. 658–661 (the 1st edition does not help much here). That part is an appendix titled "Principal Persons who Joined the Prince of Orange", which draws from memoirs of the 2nd Earl of Chesterfield and a book by William Dugdale. Still, it is just Dugdale and Cokayne's judgement of who are "principal" enough to be listed. I do not see that every list from The Complete Peerage is notable as a stand-alone list article, especially given the large number of people deserted to William during the Glorious Revolution. Given that there are quite a few unknown personnel (such as "Squire Bray") in the list, it seems better off to have the deserters in a category rather than a stand-alone list. ネイ (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trust AM

Trust AM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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]

Northumberland Hospital Radio

Northumberland Hospital Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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) 10:26, 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) 10:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mewing (facial restructuring technique)

Mewing (facial restructuring technique) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article does not meet the standards of relevancy and it seems that it only has two sources that are not covering the recent wave of the popularity of mewing as a meme. There is also only one source has any type of reputability. The article is clearly not on a notable subject. Polargrizbear (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Popular culture. Polargrizbear (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per recent coverage (or, if all else fails, merge into List of Generation Z slang or John Mew:

• "What is the ‘mewing’ trend? Why teachers are hitting back at classroom craze" from The Independent
• "What to know about mewing: Netflix doc 'Open Wide' rekindles interest in beauty trend (archived version without paywall) from USA Today, given this is covering a documentary on the subject
• "A24 Sets Documentary ‘Open Wide,’ About Controversial Orthodontists Behind Viral TikTok Trend, at Netflix" from Variety, although given this is a WP:FRINGE topic, not sure how relevant this would be

I think the article sits in a weird spot between fringe medical theory-thing & popular culture. Orthodontic medical sources would be appreciated and likely necessary for the article, though I'm not sure where to find those. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my quick Google and Google Scholar search (I can't access the Wikipedia Library on my phone):

• https://www.esquire.com/uk/style/grooming/a46200555/tik-tok-defined-jawline/ - Esquire article, found on semi-related article Looksmaxxing
• https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/3280/ - a senior thesis, citations inside may be of use (I'm generally unfamiliar with WP:MEDRS and rarely touch the subject on principle)
• https://www.joms.org/article/S0278-2391(19)30349-0/fulltext - appears to be written by dentists, will verify publication when on desktop and available
• https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-0043-1767647?device=mobile&innerWidth=980&offsetWidth=980 - mewing as a potential cause for salivary gland cysts

Just speculation - I wouldn't be shocked in the next few years some more scholarly research comes out about the negative effects of mewing. I stand by my earlier statement that mewing sits at a strange crossroads of fringe medical topic and fad. I hope more scholarly research comes out, since this article is probably prone to fringe POV hijacking. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I give up on correcting that. If some more scholarly research comes out. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, "mewing" is mentioned in this medical journal and The New York Times back in 2020. Obviously a fringe hypothesis, however. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Absolutely keep, clearly passes strong WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I am the creator of this article. It might be worthy to note that this was originally a redirect to John Mew. Per the above keep votes. There is an entire documentary about mewing coming out (cool to know), so I believe this is WP:SUSTAINED. Another thing to note is that a redirect/merge back to John Mew would certainly not make sense as this topic is known far beyond the person who coined it, and I don't think a redirect to List of Generation Z slang would make much sense as it's not exactly a slang dictionary word. TLA^tlak 12:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It sits at a strange intersection. I'm not sure which would be more appropriate, but it'd likely be Mew. Striking out my prior comment about adding it to the list of Generation Z slang. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I know that pageviews should not contribute to notability, however, it's clear that wherever this Mewing title leads to gets the views. I personally think it would be irresponsible for us to redirect it to a lesser known person with limited information about the technique. Gen Z slang is so complicated and strange 😞 TLA^tlak 13:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. We may lament its notability but it is notable albeit in a fairly minor way. It joins the long list of notable pseudo medical fads that encrust the sordid history of quackery. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mewing is not “generation Z slang”, though. It’s a facial technique, and it should be treated as so. I feel there is too much information about it to be placed in a sub-article. GP22248 (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above Mach61 19:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep This technique is probably nonsense, but unfortunately it is still present in numerous sources. However, it should be made clear that it is not scientific but an internet phenomenon. Killarnee (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Williams (academic)

Julia Williams (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable academic, misses the bar for WP:NACADEMIC #8 as was never editor-in-chief, not much I can find in books or google. BrigadierG (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Health and fitness, Medicine, and United Kingdom. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's really scraping the bottom of the barrel when you list getting a PhD as an "award"! Athel cb (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I went through the page and tried to improve it, but it wasn't worth the time - does not satisfy WP:PROF. Qflib (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Scopus profile shows c. 850 citations, I don't know if that is high or low for the field: [4]. ResonantDis_tortion 19:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Superbase (database)

Superbase (database) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - @Mdggdj: This is the fourth such nomination in about as many hours with the same rationale verbatim, and as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux for PlayStation 2 not only are independent sources easy to find, such as GBooks having several reviews in InfoWorld and an entire book about the subject called Superbase Revealed, there are newspaper reviews and more books on archive.org such as Using Superbase and Superbase the Book. The nomination is also inaccurate as there is an independent source already present in the article, and that with what can be found in a couple of minutes online is more than enough to show notability. - Aoidh (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Aoidh above. Pavlor (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abtin Abassi

Abtin Abassi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 07:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Iran, and United Kingdom. Macbeejack ☎ 07:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination

GoggleGoose (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Maker here. Meets GNG because article in The Telegraph / British GQ / Vice / more I will keep finding. I will try to add more Deondernemers (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Article by GQ here is a paid piece, the second source by The Telegraph is self-published here. I doubt the Genuity of the other sources as well. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This Forbes citation is unreliable an written by a contributor. According to @Jamiebuba, the British GQ article is also a paid one. Promotional theme failing business related guideline. No GNG. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KTV Ltd.

KTV Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable and lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Largely unencyclopedic content including channel listings, "competitors" and the cost per month. PROD removed on the basis of sources on the Spanish Wikipedia that appear to be solely about the hacking of various Falkland Islands websites nearly 10 years ago. AusLondonder (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, United Kingdom, and Argentina. AusLondonder (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the two refs I added before this nomination. They were from the Spanish Wikipedia. Neither mentions hacking so I’m confused. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree article needs pruning and improvement. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Two of the sources at the Spanish Wikipedia mention the website hacking incident. With regards to the sources you added, one appears to be primarily about Falkland Islands Television Limited, not KTV. It appears to be a trivial source per WP:ORGTRIV (coverage "of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business" is considered trivial). The other source is an interview with someone from the company, considered a primary source. AusLondonder (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it serves the needs of various communities which and is an important source or information to them. Article does need improving though. Karl Twist (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Guess we may as well get rid of notability requirements then. All information could potentially be useful to someone. WP:USEFUL. AusLondonder (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Murch

Jordan Murch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't believe this footballer meets GNG. He is mentioned in a number of news articles, like this one, but they are either local/routine coverage or interviews. I'm not seeing enough significant coverage.

He has played a fair number of games in his career but most were at semi-pro level. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and Scotland. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. I just found mentions of him in an archive search. Dougal18 (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG—only appeared at rather low levels of semi-pro football with no distinguishing characteristics to supersede that fact. Anwegmann (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Broadgreen

Radio Broadgreen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another closed-circuit hospital radio station which does not meet WP:BASIC. Article completely unsourced and research does not reveal much (if any) coverage, other than a single event in 2016 which attracted some offbeat news coverage [5]. Flip Format (talk) 14:55, 20 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) 14:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately there are many, many hundreds of completely unsourced, non-notable radio station articles (of which this is one) on Wikipedia due to previous policy effectively suggesting all radio stations were inherently notable. While it is a shame to see people's work be deleted, without sources we have no credibility, we effectively become a social media site. It's extraordinary how many of these articles have existed for 10-20 years with literally no sources. I also note that the page was specifically created to "advertise the station as much as possible" AusLondonder (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Berks

St. Berks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article cites no sources; sources difficult/impossible to find, clearly not notable Personhumanperson (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Entertainment, and United Kingdom. Personhumanperson (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I cannot find a single source online about this, from the BBC, on archive.org, or otherwise, which is odd as the main significance of it seems to be that it was the first BBC Digital Commission. I wonder if this article is pure fabrication, or if information about the show has just been lost to time (or if anyone can dig up a source on it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quuxbazbarfoo (talk • contribs) 17:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Great piece of creative writing. Zero available evidence this series even existed; all indicators point towards the article creator and main contributing editor being on some sort of hoax. (for reference - see the first ever edit by the creator of this article [6]; the plot itself appears - erm - far fetched unless as a surreal comedy - NOTHERE may well apply). ResonantDis_tortion 23:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think we've got a new one for the WP:HOAXLIST for sure, so 'congratulations' to Dickpiggot (talk · contribs) for getting this just short of the eighteen-year mark AND somehow not getting immediately blocked. Nate • (chatter) 23:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Congratulations to Personhumanperson on spotting this. It's actually incredible how many articles have been around 10-20 years with zero sources, particularly in the radio topic area. There's a lot of cleaning up to do to. Congratulations also to the creator for managing to create a hoax unnoticed for going on two decades. AusLondonder (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What amazes me so much is that, looking at the page history, it was visited and touched by so many experienced users, and yet none of them caught on. Serious props to the guy, who created a hoax so believable that even well-known users missed it. Personhumanperson (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All editors really need to be much more alert and active regarding wholly unsourced articles. It's damaging to our credibility as an encyclopedia. AusLondonder (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing Online. Wow, a Hoax! 🍪 CookieMonster 04:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: if the series had been broadcast on BBC Radio 4 or BBC 7 (now BBC Radio 4 Extra) it would have an entry in the BBC Genome Project, and it doesn't. :Flip Format (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No sources and poorly written. It doesn't even mention dates as to when it was ran, even if it is real. But this whole thing could be hoax. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wonder if creator's name is a reference to Richard Pigott, an Irish journalist known for creating a forgery... AusLondonder (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Does this qualify for G3?🍪 CookieMonster 11:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikidata item doesn't contain anything meaningful too. Killarnee (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie Dewsbury

Ollie Dewsbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't believe the subject meets GNG yet. It may be a case of TOOSOON. He has made a single substitute appearance against a non-professional team. Although he has been noted as one of the youngest players to appear for his club, I don't think he has attracted enough attention for an article yet. It could also be draftified if anyone wished to work on it further. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 21:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and England. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 21:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify – Per WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Yep, perfect situation for this. Definitely WP:TOOSOON, but there's a good chance he'll make the cut at some point. Anwegmann (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft per above. Govvy (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - classic TOOSOON; teenager player who might or might not succeed. I do not oppose userfication. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radhika Piramal

Radhika Piramal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable, no WP:SIGCOV apart from her coming out of the closet as LGBT. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 07:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, India, and United Kingdom. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 07:35, 16 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!} 05:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Provident Association

Western Provident Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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]

Alan Davies (headmaster)

Alan Davies (headmaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not convinced of notability here. I don't think that everyone who has been stripped of their knighthood is notable enough. BangJan1999 21:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Crime, and United Kingdom. BangJan1999 21:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I can't also see that as Notability and hence, since it may be important to Wikipedia, I suggest redirecting to Copland Community School and Technology Centre Foundation. Otuọcha (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm on the fence about this, so interested to hear others' views. The article on the school already covers these events well. There was a lot of coverage of the fraud in RS, and I don't think WP:BLP1E applies as the third condition is not met. There also must have been coverage of Davies at the time he was knighted. I guess I'm leaning weak keep, but happy to be convinced otherwise. Tacyarg (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A knight is clearly notable per WP:ANYBIO #1, precedent and consensus. No article on a verified knight has ever been deleted at AfD. And for good reason, since knighthoods are not handed out in cereal packets. Only two or three dozen are conferred every year in a country of 67 million people. There's also easily enough coverage of him to meet WP:GNG. Ridiculous nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 15 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!} 19:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went to this school, I say we keep this.

It's important to have this so, this doesn't happen again. (Stealing from children's education) 2A00:23C7:D00A:E601:EC8B:7A5F:E4C:B65D (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is not allowed on wikipedia. You may want to read this. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 03:19, 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!} 21:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep More work needed. If he was awarded a Knight, which is one of the highest British honours, then there is notability. My concern is about the teacher stuff. However, if the award was because of his service to teaching and a case of one event for fraud (on teaching noting) with took significant amount of coverage. Without prior doubts, vote keep. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant keep. Reluctant as he is far from being an admirable individual, but keep as he is clearly notable, whatever one might prefer. Athel cb (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

• Higgledy House (via WP:PROD on 8 September 2023)

Redirects

Templates

• Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom/Article alerts, a bot-maintained listing of a variety of changes affecting United Kingdom related pages including deletion discussions

Richard Kell (footballer)

Richard Kell (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Staley (English footballer)

Carrie Staley (English footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

She fails GNG. Sources in the article do not cover Staley in depth. An archive search only found mentions in match reports. Dougal18 (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters

List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same issues below:

List of 2010 Commonwealth Games broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of EFL Cup broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Eredivisie broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of EuroLeague broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Ligue 1 broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all of the sources are announcments and does not assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Football. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT Recreation of unencyclopaedic content. Govvy (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball, Lists, Delhi, France, Netherlands, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There was no way in which this article was going to survive. I have copied and pasted its content into the main article which means there is now no need for this to be retained. I am only commenting on, and advocating for deletion of, the FIFA CWC broadcast list. Rillington (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect only the Club World Cup broadcasting article to FIFA Club World Cup#List of current broadcasters per nom. Lacks standalone notability. Procedurally keep all others so they can be renominated separately if desired and their individual merits can be better examined. This list includes domestic football leagues, domestic and international football cups, and multiple non-football competitions which could have widely varying levels of notability.Frank Anchor 23:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Dias

Fabio Dias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No claim that means WP:GNG. Lecturer status doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC; a search doesn't reveal coverage in reliable sources; Google Scholar shows at H-factor of 3, suggesting that there is little output (so far in his academic career) and/or that it has had little impact. Being a partner in a hedge manager with AUM of circa £1 million seems insufficient. Klbrain (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Finance, Computing, England, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep I disagree that he does not satisfy the notability requirements. He satisfies point 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. How many academics out there have become managing partners of hedge funds and stayed as academics leading their universities towards industry specific training with distinguished institutions such as Bloomberg L.P.? Giving industry talks at international professional summits while teaching their students simultaneously? As an example, Nick Anstead is also “only” a lecturer and yet there is a page for him because of contributions that he made to the outside world. Similarly Ashley Hickson-Lovence, Sanjay Jain, Paul Melo e Castro and Jeremy Munday. I see Dr Dias even more notable than these given the reach and influence of the hedge fund industry.

We need to value our teachers that spend more time transferring knowledge and less time making publications just because they are doing more practical things for the students. He has contributed significantly outside of academia (academia meaning publications, which is what the H index is about) in his academic capacity, which is what the notability requirement is about. The H index is just one of many different ways of reaching notability.

I disclose that I do not have a personal relationship with Dr Dias, but I was his student last year. We don’t have any professional or personal relationship since. I consulted with other students and we agreed that a Wikipedia page was warranted in his case. Several parents wanted to know more about Dr Fabio Dias during university talks and the right place for them to find this information is exactly an encyclopedia. Contributor892z 12:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Assistant professors (or equivalently in the UK, lecturers) usually do not pass WP:PROF and he seems no exception. Weak citation record [7] definitely fails WP:PROF#C1. No evidence of WP:GNG-based notability. PROF#C7, as argued above, is only for people so famous as being academic experts in some specialty that they are frequently sought after by the media for quotes on stories relating to that specialty, for which we also lack evidence. Keeping one foot in academia and the other in finance is not a notability criterion. Giving talks as an academic is routine and expected, not a notability criterion. The rest of contributor's arguments above reduce to WP:WAX. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don’t want to leave the impression that I have a conflict of interest on this particular article being published; you can see in my history that I have made other articles too about other academics. Having said that, looks like the only issue with WP:PROF#C7 is that I haven’t presented evidence of him being sought after by national UK media for quotes and opinion as an expert, but I am aware that these exist. I believe WP:ATD-I and WP:DRAFTIFY apply as the article is still quite new I may have rushed moving this article to the main space. With enough time, I can find between 5-10 independent and significant examples of national media coverage about the subject, and then send the article back for review. Contributor892z (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Shimer

David Shimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I apologize if this is not a good nomination I don't normally deal with biographies. He doesn't seem that notable based on Wikipedia:Notability_(people) criteria , having only published one book and that book does not seem to be that impactful to me. EvilxFish (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, History, England, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Probably passes AUTHOR with book reviews in the Guardian, Washington Post and NY Times [8], [9] and [10] Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: And a long, rambling NPR discussion/review/analysis thing [11]. Not to be negative, but they always have lots to say about stuff... Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpolitan identity

Liverpolitan identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Renominating this per my earlier close. There are a plethora of issues. Its basis is a WP:FRINGE theory with addition WP:original research on top. WP:COMMONNAME does not support it. Previous arguments suggested that it be rewritten into a new article based around the culture and context of Liverpudlian; this page is then in breach of WP:NOARTICLE. Also WP:DICDEF There are insufficient reliable sources presented to support this as being a widespread or common usage. Those available are mostly passing mentions; other sources are from vested interests (e.g. Wetherspoons!) or support the complete opposite of what the article is claiming. Reliably sourced material, such as that from the University of Liverpool Press, actually argues that Scouse is the cultural demonym of Liverpool, compared to how it is being (mis)cited here. Some sources do not even mention the topic; others are merely about people who happen to be from there.

Paging participants at the earlier AfD: @Orange sticker, Phil Bridger, Wcquidditch, Koncorde, Cullen328, Jonathan Deamer, Axad12, Redfiona99, and Liverpolitan1980:. ——Serial Number 54129 15:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Popular culture, Social science, and England. ——Serial Number 54129 15:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I think there is definitely room for improvement and I would welcome other contributors to input improvements to the page. There are almost definite and clear connotations to the term 'Liverpolitan' and its use throughout history, as opposed to Liverpudlian. This needs to be expanded with help from contributors. It is imperative to a fair representation of Liverpool's history. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article does not follow MOS:ID as can be seen by comparing the word 'Liverpolitan' to other terms on Google Ngram or Google Trends. Additionally, it does not meet WP:N as many of the references in the article actually contain arguments which clearly state that the term is not generally used, understood or accepted, such as the quote from Steve Rotheram on BBC Radio, thus contradicting the overall basis of this article. Orange sticker (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article makes it absolutely clear from the very outset that Scouse is the dominant demonym. It's in the lede section. It cites how the Scouse identity became popularised in the mid 20th century. It compares the much older Liverpolitan term to this, the etymology and historical context of the word. The article also explains how the term Liverpolitan has been used in a contemporary sense. The sources are news organizations. The article does not attempt to conflate the Victorian context with that of the 21st century. It merely presents the evolution of the term throughout history. Therefore, there is no attempt to present A+B=C. Each individual citation is explained exactly how they were written. There is no clear explanation as to why anyone here could possibly reach that conclusion, no specific examples, no rationale behind it and no clear attempts to improve the article itself etc...Furthermore, any deletion is also hasty and has not allowed the article enough time to develop or be improved by other contributors. For example, I have identified numerous articles within the British Newspaper archive which compare and contrast Liverpolitan to Liverpudlian. There has not been enough time to input these in to the article yet. I am able to do that as early as next week and the guidance under fringe theory advises not to assume that sources are not available simply because some editors have failed to find them. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Furthermore, it must be borne in mind here that above where it says:

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

  The system is struggling because there is a possibility the page has been mislabelled. If you change sources to "liverpolitan" you see results. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't have time to argue with every point that Liverpolitan1980 has made at various venues, but my statement in the original discussion still stands (apart from the original point 1 which was about the AfD discussion itself), as there has been no convincing response:
  1. Nearly all sources for the word I could find (especially book sources) are passing mentions of the magazine.
  2. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.
  3. "Scouse" is in a different register. The much more commonly (than "Liverpolitan") used word "Liverpudlian" is in a slightly "posher" register as this word is claimed to be. What is the difference? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Re: WP:COMMONNAME, I suggested in the initial AfD that the article breached this policy, but I’ve subsequently realised that I was probably wrong. There are three distinct identities for people from Liverpool: Liverpudlian, Scouse and Liverpolitan – of which Liverpolitan is significantly the least common. As the article is specifically about the third of those identities, it is correctly titled. It is however a clear anomaly that no articles currently exist for the far more common Liverpudlian identity and Scouse identity (an article exists only for the Scouse accent, which is a different thing).

My personal opinion is that the article would be a great deal stronger if its scope was widened to cover all 3 identities for people from Liverpool, e.g. the differences between them, when they emerged, etc. Suggested title ‘Liverpudlian identities’. The section of the present article which concentrates on these sort of issues is significantly the strongest part of the article, which I think demonstrates my point. The real issue surrounding Liverpudlian identities, in my opinion at least, is not around the use of the word Liverpolitan but in the extent to which the term Scouse is embraced or rejected.

However, if the article is to remain solely on the Liverpolitan identity, I have discussed with the author in some detail how I believe he can improve the content to make it read less like a list of occasions on which the term Liverpolitan has been used and instead work better with his material by approaching the topic from different directions (making it about the term, rather than about when the term has been used). I would therefore be inclined to give them the opportunity to make such improvements unless the present article is rejected a priori on scope grounds (in which case I'd suggest that a widening of the scope would be preferable to deletion) . Axad12 (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will write another longer comment, but I really like Axad's idea. Red Fiona (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a precedent for articles on collective identities at such a localised level (category: collective identity). I would also expect such an article to be very controversial! Orange sticker (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Liverpolitan identity" as a subject of any length is real problem of SYNTH / OR. There's no real discussion of such as thing as a "Liverpolitan identity". You would struggle to find much in the way of articles about "Liverpudlian identity" or "Scouse identity" because it's just not the way anyone would discuss the subject. Instead what we have, at the crux of this debate, is the word "Liverpolitan". Liverpolitan itself is a word of some historicity - but that doesn't mean it's article worthy in its own right, because very little has actually been written about it. Instead the "Liverpolitan identity" article has a bit of a laundry list of times the word Liverpolitan has been used, and in some cases the usage is part of very finite discussions about whether it should be the demonym for people from Liverpool, or more recently a much wider area as a result of the creation of the Liverpool City Region. However that doesn't so much support the idea of a "Liverpool identity" as a subject, but rather demonstrate how limited its usage is and how some people periodically advance it as an alternative and it's generally ignored. This for me falls then firmly within WP:DICDEF territory that can be summarised thusly:

• Liverpolitan is a historic demonym for the inhabitants of Liverpool.
• The term had some popularity around the turn of the 19th century, but the more popular demonyms Liverpudlian and Scouser have taken precedence. The term has not found widespread popularity or usage.

Echoing Orange Sticker, a lot of the content in "Liverpolitan identity" is generic Liverpool content, the given source often not mentioning the term, or when it does discuss demonyms it rejects the term, or emphasises the other terms, as the popular demonyms without getting into any further discussion of identity or culture. There's some content that talks about the evolution of the demonym that might be worth merging into the main Liverpool article in some fashion (though I haven't gone through the sources fully, I doubt is controversial, but may be a little bit of WP:OR to resolve). Some of the content is relevant to the LCR specifically or to a lesser extent Steve Rotherham. Koncorde (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:, on the other AFD I said that no matter what, better sourcing was needed. Having taken Liverpolitan1980 up on his suggestion to read the sources, here is a very brief summary (I am assuming good faith that the references I couldn't access (or did not read all of) are solid and relevant [refs 5, 6, 12, 16, 18, 21, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 43, 46, 48, 51, 61).

Mention Liverpolitan as a concept: Refs 2, 13, 15 [but says unlikely to ever be in common usage again], 20, 25, 26, 32, 35, 47 (but claims it to be a controversial name), 50, 57 Mention Liverpool but not Liverpolitan: Refs 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 40, 41, 42, 52, 54, 59 Refs all based on the same press release: 27, 29, 30, 53 Refs which discuss other items named Liverpolitan, not in an identity sense: 55, 56, 58 Link to an archive not a specific page so relevance cannot be assessed: Ref 7, 49 Don't mention Liverpool: Ref 9 Not a source for these purposes: ref 1 (dictionary definition) Repeats of previously used refs: Ref 28 (is ref 2 again), 38 (is 16 again), 44 (is 43 again), 45 (is 33 again), 60 (is 20 again).

I would also suggest that if the article is kept, using the structure of ref 26, explaining that it's an old world that people are trying to refresh to give an identity to the LCR, might be the way forward, because that is how most of the references that do mention it describe it.

43/44 could also do with being given its proper reference, not a ResearchGate link.

[Also, conflict of interest statement: I am very much a woolyback so really can't see this taking off.] Red Fiona (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting analysis, which I think supports my suggestion that the scope of the article needs to be widened. Axad12 (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Demonyms for Liverpool could be a possibility (per Demonyms for the United States). However it would need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and to be neutrally written. TSventon (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am happy (and have the time) to do one of three things.

1) Move some content in to the parent Liverpool article under the 'Demonym and identity' section. I can certainly take the most notable parts of the article and incorporate them in to the Liverpool article. Taking on board Koncorde above - there's some content that talks about the evolution of the demonym that might be worth merging into the main Liverpool article in some fashion. I can assure him that there is no WP:OR. I have certainly researched the subject though, more than most Wikipedians it seems since the subject is little referenced on the encyclopedia. Anyone would think that Scouser has been the only identity in the history of Liverpool - until I have obviously flagged the subject for further discussion.

2) There are almost certainly articles on the encyclopedia that follow the convention of 'List of demonyms', 'List of adjectivals and demonyms' etc... I am certainly happy for a re-naming of the article to List of adjectivals and demonyms in the Liverpool City Region. I can assure people that there are more than a few. One of the users above uses the word woollyback, one uses Scouser, I use Liverpolitan. The list is not exhaustive. If I do that, I need some assurances that the article would be allowed to develop in that subject without another nomination for deletion.

3) A complete re-write I simply just do not have the time to do by myself. However, I appreciate Axad12's comment above that this is part of a much wider discussion. I agree with her/him. The issue for me is that the topic is little referenced on the encyclopedia as it stands. If people are willing to re-organise and re-name this article along side working with me then I am happy to do that. I am not sure what the title would be, but 'Identities within the Liverpool City Region' could be a start?

It all depends on what way this discussion is going to go. But from where I am coming from there seems little appetite to make constructive changes to the article itself - rather to critique the need for its existence in the first place. I will need some heavy reassurances that there is not going to be a huge amount of controversy or drama with any of these three directions. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that all controversy on the current article relates to the title and the fact that the article relates to a relatively obscure corner of a much larger issue.

I can't speak for others but I'd imagine that any of your 3 suggestions above would remove those problems - as long as the coverage given to Liverpolitan is not WP:UNDUE.

(I don't think the list option works. My understanding is that Wikipedia list articles - e.g. 'List of [x]' - are supposed to list things which (in the main) already have their own articles on Wikipedia. I may be wrong on that, but the list option seems like the worst option of the 3 anyway.) Axad12 (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with option 1, however I would urge caution when writing about a collective identity as it is such a loaded topic. Expanding on your list of demonyms to include a bit more about their origins, etymology and usage would be a strong contribution to the either the Liverpool, Scouse or Liverpool City Region page, I think. Orange sticker (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the WP:OR - statements like:

• "Over time, the Scouse identity has become entrenched within the local culture and has been intensified by those who identify more with Liverpool's maritime history and connections to overseas than they do to England itself, or the English establishment."

and

• "The identity has also been adopted in the surrounding areas of Liverpool, most notably in Sefton and Knowsley, and to a lesser degree on the Wirral and in St Helens"

Are both at a glance at source and sentence explicitly OR. For the first sentence there is no mention in the source of maritime history etc Indeed the final paragraph attributes the Scouse identity proxy of "Scouse, not English" to "civic pride and rebellious spirit", a failure of of the Establishment, and the fact there's a lot of Irish descendants. For the second sentence meanwhile being it claims the identity has been "adopted". This isn't put forwards at all by the source and would be a very odd claim to make versus, say, it simply reflecting that Scousers have (over time) moved to those areas. The actual paper is about the impactfulness of the Scouse identity on voting, rather than any attempt to attribute "Scouse identity" to those areas or people, with the numbers used to attribute a coefficient for his statistical analysis. He is in effect saying "I interviewed some people, some said they were scouse - this is what that means for their voting habits". Using the study for other purposes is OR, and the way it is presented in the paragraph is rather blatant WP:SYNTH as it would be inferred that "Scouse, not English" would also be relevant in those other areas (which, again, isn't supported by the sources). Koncorde (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have made some improvements to the Liverpool article for contributor perusal. I feel that this is a completely fair representation of Liverpool's history. I am happy for this page to be deleted and over time perhaps the Scouse page can be expanded. Also, a simple re-direct from 'Liverpolitan identity' and 'Liverpolitan' to the Liverpool article might do the trick. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Does seem largely OR or SYNTH, most uses of the term are a line or two. Could be trimmed back to a DICDEF and incorporated into an article about Liverpool. Seems to be largely an attempt at promoting a point of view. Oaktree b (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And please don't reply with a wall of text as above; I'm frankly not interested. Oaktree b (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y.O.U.N.G

Y.O.U.N.G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very non-notable band. No reliable sources or any successful releases by them upon WP:BEFORE. Rydex64 (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rydex64 (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trust AM

Trust AM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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]

Northumberland Hospital Radio

Northumberland Hospital Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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) 10:26, 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) 10:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pippa Taylor

Pippa Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:BASIC as not having "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Very poorly sourced - citations are Twitter, single sentence name drops, a dead citation to her employer titled "WATCH:Pippa And Toby Took Their Relationship To The Next Level..." and two primary citations to Basingstoke Council regarding her mother's role as a councillor. AusLondonder (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Poor article, padded out with unnecessary detail (an entire paragraph on the subject's mum being a local councillor is particularly filler-like). I'm not sure WP:BEFORE was done on this nom, but I have done a little searching and the subject has a few published books, but nothing "significant" per WP:AUTHOR - just quiz books. News coverage is limited to tabloid coverage of her relationship to Toby Tarrant (who is also questionably notable). There seems to have previously been a presumption that anyone who appears on or works in radio is automatically notable, but this is no longer the case, radio presenters or producers even at a national level need to meet GNG and this individual appears non-notable in the specific context of that Wikipedia guideline, has not made a significant contribution to the field and is just another workaday radio producer. Flip Format (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with most of your comments, but to be clear I did conduct a search prior to nomination. I found tabloid celebrity stories such as this. Her quiz book received virtually no coverage, certainly nothing to even consider per WP:NAUTHOR. AusLondonder (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Peel

Nick Peel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

When this article was created the new page patroller wrote to the creator "Sources cited are not enough to establish notability per WP:GNG, and elected officials at local government level are not automatically notable per WP:NPOL." This is my exact concern now. Coverage is very much local, routine and expected for a local government leader. Peel is lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to meet WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - local councillor. SportingFlyer T·C 16:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Politicians at the borough council level are not automatically notable just for existing, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 on the basis of a hell of a lot more reliable source coverage about their council work than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siju Adeoye

Siju Adeoye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion by WP:CSD and WP:PROD. Subject fails WP:NPOL. Served as a local councillor for a single term before switching parties and being defeated. Article appears somewhat promotional: "Adeoye is a voice for the residents in Chatham Central, striving for vibrant community and standing up to austerity" - which is also rather inaccurate, as she subsequently changed parties. Many of the sources are primary, those sources that are secondary are very much routine, local coverage to be expected for councillors. AusLondonder (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. AusLondonder (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article has been edited severally over the years by different editors and this article has been nominated severally for deletion discussion. She being an elected official whether one term or not passes the Notability test. If there have been any issues with NPOV I taught us editors we will rather correct thoses statements but using that as a basis for deletion is not what as Wikipedians we hold ourselves out to do. Owula kpakpo (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately being an elected official in local government does not "pass the notability test" see WP:NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". The article has been nominated a few times with WP:CSD and WP:PROD but not for a deletion discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Knapper

George Knapper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. Article is sourced to trivial puff pieces, blogs, and non independent sources. The actor doesn't appear to have been in any significant productions. Just small regional theatre companies. No film or television work. 4meter4 (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Music, Theatre, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Trivial sources about appearances in the film, nothing independent as per nom. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 04:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Stolli

Anna Stolli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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]

Greg Castiglioni

Greg Castiglioni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article appears to be mainly sources to self published sources, primary sources, blogs, or otherwise non-independent publications. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Theatre, Italy, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

London to New York Air Route

London to New York Air Route (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There aren't many reliable sources that describe this air route. We already have an article at transatlantic flight that should cover this. Interstellarity (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, England, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ikoku

Mary Ikoku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am doubtful of passing GNG. Per Before gave articles linking only to her campaign like this one although have no results nor passes WP:NPOL. SIGCOV is also a problem and judging from the media aspect, the subject fails ANYBIO. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, England, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Williams (academic)

Julia Williams (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable academic, misses the bar for WP:NACADEMIC #8 as was never editor-in-chief, not much I can find in books or google. BrigadierG (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Health and fitness, Medicine, and United Kingdom. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's really scraping the bottom of the barrel when you list getting a PhD as an "award"! Athel cb (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I went through the page and tried to improve it, but it wasn't worth the time - does not satisfy WP:PROF. Qflib (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Scopus profile shows c. 850 citations, I don't know if that is high or low for the field: [12]. ResonantDis_tortion 19:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Powell (musician)

Craig Powell (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Solo career and martial arts career have no notability, should be deleted and info added to Uniting Nations InDimensional (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sourcing found for this musician that I find, nothing used in the article. Not opposed to a merge as suggested. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. nf utvol (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No sources to establish notability. @T.C.G. [talk] 18:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Chilcott

Martin Chilcott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Insufficient independent coverage of the subject on Google News and in the article to pass WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Education, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Berks

St. Berks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article cites no sources; sources difficult/impossible to find, clearly not notable Personhumanperson (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Entertainment, and United Kingdom. Personhumanperson (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I cannot find a single source online about this, from the BBC, on archive.org, or otherwise, which is odd as the main significance of it seems to be that it was the first BBC Digital Commission. I wonder if this article is pure fabrication, or if information about the show has just been lost to time (or if anyone can dig up a source on it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quuxbazbarfoo (talk • contribs) 17:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Great piece of creative writing. Zero available evidence this series even existed; all indicators point towards the article creator and main contributing editor being on some sort of hoax. (for reference - see the first ever edit by the creator of this article [13]; the plot itself appears - erm - far fetched unless as a surreal comedy - NOTHERE may well apply). ResonantDis_tortion 23:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think we've got a new one for the WP:HOAXLIST for sure, so 'congratulations' to Dickpiggot (talk · contribs) for getting this just short of the eighteen-year mark AND somehow not getting immediately blocked. Nate • (chatter) 23:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Congratulations to Personhumanperson on spotting this. It's actually incredible how many articles have been around 10-20 years with zero sources, particularly in the radio topic area. There's a lot of cleaning up to do to. Congratulations also to the creator for managing to create a hoax unnoticed for going on two decades. AusLondonder (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What amazes me so much is that, looking at the page history, it was visited and touched by so many experienced users, and yet none of them caught on. Serious props to the guy, who created a hoax so believable that even well-known users missed it. Personhumanperson (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All editors really need to be much more alert and active regarding wholly unsourced articles. It's damaging to our credibility as an encyclopedia. AusLondonder (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing Online. Wow, a Hoax! 🍪 CookieMonster 04:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: if the series had been broadcast on BBC Radio 4 or BBC 7 (now BBC Radio 4 Extra) it would have an entry in the BBC Genome Project, and it doesn't. :Flip Format (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No sources and poorly written. It doesn't even mention dates as to when it was ran, even if it is real. But this whole thing could be hoax. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wonder if creator's name is a reference to Richard Pigott, an Irish journalist known for creating a forgery... AusLondonder (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Does this qualify for G3?🍪 CookieMonster 11:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikidata item doesn't contain anything meaningful too. Killarnee (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Broadgreen

Radio Broadgreen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another closed-circuit hospital radio station which does not meet WP:BASIC. Article completely unsourced and research does not reveal much (if any) coverage, other than a single event in 2016 which attracted some offbeat news coverage [14]. Flip Format (talk) 14:55, 20 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) 14:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately there are many, many hundreds of completely unsourced, non-notable radio station articles (of which this is one) on Wikipedia due to previous policy effectively suggesting all radio stations were inherently notable. While it is a shame to see people's work be deleted, without sources we have no credibility, we effectively become a social media site. It's extraordinary how many of these articles have existed for 10-20 years with literally no sources. I also note that the page was specifically created to "advertise the station as much as possible" AusLondonder (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie Dewsbury

Ollie Dewsbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't believe the subject meets GNG yet. It may be a case of TOOSOON. He has made a single substitute appearance against a non-professional team. Although he has been noted as one of the youngest players to appear for his club, I don't think he has attracted enough attention for an article yet. It could also be draftified if anyone wished to work on it further. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 21:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and England. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 21:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify – Per WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Yep, perfect situation for this. Definitely WP:TOOSOON, but there's a good chance he'll make the cut at some point. Anwegmann (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft per above. Govvy (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - classic TOOSOON; teenager player who might or might not succeed. I do not oppose userfication. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Radar Volume 2

Under the Radar Volume 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Same as WP:Articles for deletion/Under the Radar Volume 3 - No evidence of notability, Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me. I don't have a huge amount of emotional investment or interest here (I was more interested in the topic five-ten years ago, when I worked on these pages), but I think there are a range of sources which can help establish notability. These look useful, for instance:

• https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2017/0711/889410-robbie-williams-to-raid-old-songs-for-new-album/
• https://www.nme.com/news/music/robbie-williams-announces-new-album-under-the-radar-volume-2-2107942
• https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/3118657/robbie-williams-set-to-release-new-album-under-the-radar-volume-2-on-youtube/ (n.b. godawful as it is, I think The Sun is still considered an RS on Wikipedia?)
• https://www.digitalspy.com/music/a832882/robbie-williams-new-album-arse-out-again/
• https://www.attitude.co.uk/culture/film-tv/robbie-williams-gets-naked-on-cover-of-new-album-293288/

--Jonie148 (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting keep per Jonie148. I think there's enough coverage for a short but helpful album entry here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:34, 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!} 21:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Radar Volume 1

Under the Radar Volume 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Same as WP:Articles for deletion/Under the Radar Volume 3 - No evidence of notability, Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me. I don't have a huge amount of emotional investment or interest here (I was more interested in the topic five-ten years ago, when I worked on these pages), but I think there are a range of sources which can help establish notability. These look useful, for instance:

• https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/robbie-williams-announces-surprise-new-4714614
• https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/robbie-williams-announces-surprise-album-under-the-radar__7543/
• https://www.nme.com/news/music/robbie-williams-9-1214301
• https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/28/robbie-willams-named-album-cover_n_6235976.html

--Jonie148 (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting keep per Jonie148. I think there are enough sources for a short but helpful album entry here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:32, 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!} 21:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

College of International Education

College of International Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article has clearly been created only for the purposes of promoting the organisation. It is clearly not notable - there are no articles online about it I can find. It seems to be largely sourced from the CIE website itself, or unsourced. DansterTheManster (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally agree. The organization seems completely unimportant in the scheme of things and surely not deserving of an article. Gnilhtrae (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 18 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!} 21:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayyur Girotra

Mayyur Girotra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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]

• 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. [15][16], [17], [18], [19] Various leading media houses extensively covered him. [20]. 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]

Western Provident Association

Western Provident Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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]

John Pelloe

John Pelloe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Little on the page to suggest this cleric meets the inclusion standards. Middle ranking Anglican clerics do not have assumed notability JMWt (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and England. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What do the sources in the article--mostly offline--say about him? It'd be premature to say that this should be deleted when we have sources that aren't obviously improper: Someone added them to the article at some point. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Two are notifications of appointment, one is in a directory of all clergy. The only source which could count towards notability is presence in Who Was Who. JMWt (talk) 18:53, 15 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!} 06:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epos Now

Epos Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Just an SME that fails ncorp Kaptain Kebab Heart (talk) 17:54, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please explain the acronym SME, as a reader is completely lost to what that could be. Nate • (chatter) 23:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, it refers to Small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up the overwhelming majority of UK companies Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. The article is subpar, but I think their POS system has enough coverage. US News [21], TechRadar [22], Startups.co.uk [23]. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:08, 17 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) 19:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here I found some of the sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 although they are not an in-depth coverage, yet these reviews, awards can't be neglected. Atighot (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Davies (headmaster)

Alan Davies (headmaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not convinced of notability here. I don't think that everyone who has been stripped of their knighthood is notable enough. BangJan1999 21:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Crime, and United Kingdom. BangJan1999 21:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I can't also see that as Notability and hence, since it may be important to Wikipedia, I suggest redirecting to Copland Community School and Technology Centre Foundation. Otuọcha (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm on the fence about this, so interested to hear others' views. The article on the school already covers these events well. There was a lot of coverage of the fraud in RS, and I don't think WP:BLP1E applies as the third condition is not met. There also must have been coverage of Davies at the time he was knighted. I guess I'm leaning weak keep, but happy to be convinced otherwise. Tacyarg (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A knight is clearly notable per WP:ANYBIO #1, precedent and consensus. No article on a verified knight has ever been deleted at AfD. And for good reason, since knighthoods are not handed out in cereal packets. Only two or three dozen are conferred every year in a country of 67 million people. There's also easily enough coverage of him to meet WP:GNG. Ridiculous nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 15 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!} 19:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went to this school, I say we keep this.

It's important to have this so, this doesn't happen again. (Stealing from children's education) 2A00:23C7:D00A:E601:EC8B:7A5F:E4C:B65D (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is not allowed on wikipedia. You may want to read this. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 03:19, 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!} 21:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep More work needed. If he was awarded a Knight, which is one of the highest British honours, then there is notability. My concern is about the teacher stuff. However, if the award was because of his service to teaching and a case of one event for fraud (on teaching noting) with took significant amount of coverage. Without prior doubts, vote keep. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant keep. Reluctant as he is far from being an admirable individual, but keep as he is clearly notable, whatever one might prefer. Athel cb (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zafar Azimov

Zafar Azimov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable person according to the WP GNG and WP ANYBIO. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Tajikistan, Russia, England, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Preliminary findings suggest that the subject might meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. However, a more thorough review of the available sources is warranted to ensure all potential coverage has been adequately considered. --149.172.122.230 (talk) 10:26, 7 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!} 07:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article cites two real sources: here and here. The other sources are a company bio, an article on his father, a linkedin page, and a telegram message. Meanwhile, it's full of extremely controversial claims about a living person which are either unsourced or cited to unreliable sources. I don't know Russian and can't confidently evaluate whether there's better coverage out there, but as it stands, the majority of this article needs to be swiftly deleted.— Moriwen (talk) 17:06, 12 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) 11:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shock (troupe)

Shock (troupe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP who made a request at WT:AFD which says: This article needs to be nominated for deletion. It cites no sources (despite being tagged for a decade now), and the subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Shock were a short-lived British dance troupe from the early 80s, but were never famous in their own right. They were known only by association. They released two singles, neither of which charted. Their former members are not prominent or widely known beyond this troupe. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Music. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Skynxnex (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The basics of this can be summarized in a few sentences and sourced to The Guardian, "... the burlesque pop band Shock. They supported Gary Numan at Wembley, performed at the Hacienda and did an eight-night stint at the Ritz in New York, where Grace Jones, Shields and Yarnell and Billy Idol came to see them play." Several possible articles exist to merge the basics of this into, the best being probably founding member Tim Dry, but there are also related articles on members Barbie Wilde and Carole Caplin, along with Tik and Tok, a later project. Elspea756 (talk) 20:36, 8 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!} 07:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment: There is at least a brief mention in the book "Mime into Physical Theatre: A UK Cultural History 1970–2000." All I can see is a preview, so it's hard to say how much coverage is given. Elspea756 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: And redirect to Tik and Tok, their later project, which already has the basics of this, and some additional references about their later career. Elspea756 (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

• Yoruba Arts Festival (via WP:PROD on 6 September 2023)

Others

Jordan Murch

Jordan Murch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't believe this footballer meets GNG. He is mentioned in a number of news articles, like this one, but they are either local/routine coverage or interviews. I'm not seeing enough significant coverage.

He has played a fair number of games in his career but most were at semi-pro level. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and Scotland. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. I just found mentions of him in an archive search. Dougal18 (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG—only appeared at rather low levels of semi-pro football with no distinguishing characteristics to supersede that fact. Anwegmann (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Martini Henry Rifles

The Martini Henry Rifles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wales. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sourcing is just not available. The BBC account of their signing is significant, but it is alone. The other references (now removed) were simply a link to a streaming service and what appears to have been a self published source (private registartion [24]) that hosted only a review of this band and som album that may have beein called "Semi finalists" and nothing else,[25] but in any case was misconfigured for all archive runs, and no archives of the text exist. The article says they prepared to release a second alnum in 2006 but there is nothing about a release. I can only find one album release [26] plus singles. I don't see any evidence the second album was ever completed. In any case, release of the album was not on a major label. I looked carefully at WP:NBAND under all criteria, but they don't meet any nor GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've added additional sourcing from newspaper reviews which I believe now meet the first criteria of WP:NBAND. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie Dewsbury

Ollie Dewsbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't believe the subject meets GNG yet. It may be a case of TOOSOON. He has made a single substitute appearance against a non-professional team. Although he has been noted as one of the youngest players to appear for his club, I don't think he has attracted enough attention for an article yet. It could also be draftified if anyone wished to work on it further. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 21:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and England. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 21:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify – Per WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Yep, perfect situation for this. Definitely WP:TOOSOON, but there's a good chance he'll make the cut at some point. Anwegmann (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft per above. Govvy (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - classic TOOSOON; teenager player who might or might not succeed. I do not oppose userfication. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gwyn_Ashton

Gwyn_Ashton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A large majority of this page is not cited. The only citation is from the website of the subject. The other archived citation does not appear to mention or be related to the subject. I believe this biography has been self published as it is largely plagiarised from the subject's own event listings: https://www.eventfinda.com.au/2020/gwyn-ashton/melbourne/thornbury

This article has other multiple issues: The topic of this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music. (May 2023)

This biography of a living person needs citations for verification, as its only attribution is to self-published sources; articles should not be based solely on such sources. (May 2023)

This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Wales, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Just not enough coverage to be found. This was the best in a RS [27], simply a concert listing. A few hits on this site [28]; not listed in Wiki Project Albums as a reliable source... I don't see SIGCOV for this musician. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing in the article passes notability per WP:MUSICBIO, seems like mostly support slots and obscure festival appearances. InDimensional (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, I found a few sources that may be reliable:
  • It's Psychedelic Baby! Magazine - extended interview[29]
  • Australian Musician - review[30]
  • Australian Musician - short article[31]
  • Australian Musician - extended feature[32]
  • ABC (Australia) - profile[33]

I am unfamiliar with It's Psychedelic Baby! Magazine and Australian Musician, but the Wikipedia articles on these publications indicate a level of credibility. The BBC link in the 'External sources' section of the article is in archive.org, but it is too short to be useful.[34] Verbcatcher (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the first nomination and the version kept after the first nomination. Several sources have been removed from the article since then, and I have found three of them in archive.org:

• CD Baby - review[35]
• CD Baby - short review[36]
• Bluescat - review[37]

This is sufficient for me to upgrade by opinion from 'weak keep' to 'keep'. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links Verbcatcher. Can I please point out that a majority of these links are profiles which the artist themselves uploads info on. These are not independent articles. For instance the ABC (Australia) link is a Triple J site where local musicians can create their own profile and upload their own bio, photos and 2x songs. This is the same with CD Baby, which is a platform you upload your own music onto, again writing your own bio.

The Bluescat review seems very obscure. The review is amongst dozens of other albums listed and doesn't seem to make sense, maybe it is a translated review?

The Australian Musician review describes a small outback pub performance in Australia and the Australian musician articles seem to mostly list actual well known people this artist has met or paid to meet. V260z (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the editors who contributed to the previous discussion: @PeaceNT, Scarian, Spellcast, Syzygy, JJL, Esradekan, Hazillow, Matt91486, and RFerreira: Verbcatcher (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the artist has released at least two albums, has been a member of notable bands, has toured both Australia and other nations. I've added some content and refs (some mentioned above) as well as his AllMusic entry (from ELs). Passes WP:MUSICBIO.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These citations you've added most have nothing to do with the subject.

  Examples:

  Reference 1: Does not even load a page. This has been used to reference his birthplace and date.

  Reference 2: Displays 1 sentence from an Australian rural news site and states a time and place the artist is performing for one concert in 2007. This has been used to reference his birth place and date in the article?

  Reference 3: Is actually 2x references and is an unrelated Swedish Casino site. This has been used to cite other artists the subject has allegedly performed with.

  Reference 5: Is an article about Fleetwood Mac. It is used to cite the subject almost joined Fleetwood Mac, yet no such occurrence is mentioned in the article.

  A majority of these other added references are simply a listing of one of his albums and a track list.

  Notability criteria requirements:

  1. Appears in non trivial published works which are reliable. Not including press releases or articles in which the subject talks about themselves. (for example reference 4) The referenced articles that are not casino sites or self published are interviews of the subject talking about themselves.

  • • Your analysis here is faulty. Two of the AllMusic refs describe the artist and reveiw an album. Neither are interviews or casino sites.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)10:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  2. Had a single or album in the charts of any country. No charting single or album cited.

  3. Had a gold record in at least one country. No citation of a gold record award. Not listed on RIAA website.

  4. Has received non trivial coverage of at least one international concert tour. No independent coverage of a major international tour.

  5. Released 2x records on a major record label. You mentioned this, but none of those albums were released through Warner, Universal, Sony or any majors. No, they are not signed to any major or significant label. They are self published works.

  6. This doesn't apply to the subject as he is a solo artist.

  7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city. Seems to be a nomad, not part of any "particular city's scene"

  8. Has won a Grammy award or similar. Not listed on Grammy nominations website.

  9. Has won first, second, or third place in a MAJOR music competition. No, haven't seen any awards.

  10.Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show. No, haven't seen cited work used in media.

  11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. No evidence of radio airplay. - No, haven't seen evidence of radio play.

  12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. - No, haven't seen any Television segments. V260z (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I dispute your analysis of some refs.

  1. Loads fine for me. AGF?
  2. One sentence? Whole article is on the subject. Rural news site? As part of Fairfax Media it was accessible Australia-wide.
  3. Swedish casino site? You're probably looking at its original url, which had been hi-jacked long ago. Archived url should take you to database site. This confirms membership of Swanee and Stevie Wright Band.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that the article has a lot of problems, but still think the subject is notable, so maybe improving the article would be better than deleting it? I created the article back then because I was impressed when I saw him at a festival, but I haven't followed him closely, and I won't throw a tantrum if the article is deleted. Thanks for thinking of me. -- Syzygy (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Australian Musician, an AllMusic staff written bio and others, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

• Amser Te (via WP:PROD on 14 August 2023)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]