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.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to the United Kingdom. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except ((Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName)) is used for MFD and ((transclude xfd)) for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with ((prodded)) will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to 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

CarReg UK

CarReg UK (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)

Likely to fail WP:NCORP KH-1 (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Atlantic Flight 024

Virgin Atlantic Flight 024 (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)

Minor aviation incident, no serious injuries or fatalities, not a hull loss, no impact on aviation regulations or the air transportation system generally; in summary, no WP:LASTING impact. The incident can be adequately discussed in the Heathrow Airport and Airbus A340 articles (perhaps tellingly, there is no mention of the incident in either article as I write this). Carguychris (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Carguychris (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• keep This is a clear incident with wounded people. The Banner talk 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:The Banner, can you expand a bit beyond direct impacts, here injuries sustained plus damage both to the vessel and infrastructure? gidonb (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Routine airline mechanical incident that resulted in no deaths or serious injuries, plus WP:NOTNEWS. "Wounded people" is certainly not a viable rationale for keeping the article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 23:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:PERSISTENCE, for example in: [1.] A Sociology of Commercial Flight Crew, By Bennett Simon, 2016 (originally 2006), Publisher: Taylor & Francis. [2.] The Virgin Way: Everything I Know About Leadership, By Richard Branson, 2014. Publisher: Penguin. [3.] Virgin Atlantic, By John Balmforth, 2009. Publisher: Midland. Item #1 is even a WP:CASESTUDY. gidonb (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gidonb: Could you give more iformation so we can locate the sources, and if possible, check them out for ourselves? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete There is this: [1], not certain about reliability. Otherwise it's just routine day-by-day reporting, no WP:LASTING. All other information found is either mundane database entries or trivial. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow! Great find! That's already 4 cases WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, this time from 2024! How does such persistent coverage correspond with your conclusion? gidonb (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources found by gidonb. Whether people were killed/injured/wounded are made up criteria that have nothing to do with notability and are not considered in a valid close. I would not object to a merge to one of the articles mentioned by Carguychris per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Ijaz Khwaja

Asim Ijaz Khwaja (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)

So before nominating this article for deletion, I consulted with SouthernNights, who has expertise in evaluating academic-related BLPs. They also expressed doubts about the subject meeting our WP:N. I've also conducted a BEFORE search and found nothing that could help establish GNG. Fwiw, this is a PROMO BLP! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per heavy citations on Google Scholar and WP:PROF#C1, and per named professorship at Harvard (Sumitomo-Foundation for Advanced Studies on International Development Professor of International Finance and Development at the Harvard Kennedy School) and #C5. Note that notability through WP:PROF is independent of GNG and does not involve depth of sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Eppstein, This is awkward! . I must admit I only conducted a GNG check and consulted @SouthernNights for WP:NPROF, who said it doesn't meet the WP:N, and then I proceed to nominate this BLP for deletion. But now you're claiming that it meets WP:NPROF. @SouthernNights, Could I ask you for clarification on this, please. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Named professorship at Harvard: shortcut criterion to academic notability. No disrespect to Saqib who simply received incorrect advice in this case. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. The page clearly needs a couple of edits to show it more clearly but as David says, this subject clearly meets WP:NPROF in at least two categories; one is enough. Qflib (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Hifo

Roman Hifo (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 unable to find enough in-depth coverage of this rugby league footballer to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSPERSON. JTtheOG (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, United Kingdom, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage, doesn't appear to be a notable player regardless. Mn1548 (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delight Mobile

Delight Mobile (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 is a bundled nomination of five articles on UK MVNOs failing the notability guidelines for companies/products. They are part of a larger set of seven created by the same author in October 2011: two have since been deleted, one through PROD and the other through AfD.

The other four are:

• Dalya Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dialog Vizz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Now PAYG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stan Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rather than continue the slow trickle of individual deletions, I figure it makes more sense to discuss them all at once. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Kingdom, and England. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis William Lascelles

Francis William Lascelles (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)

British official (not that Lascelles). It is not clear how he might meet WP:BIO. His position as Clerk of the House of Lords was an administrative one and does not confer automatic notability. Nothing in his unremarkable biography otherwise suggests notability. The cited sources appear to be mostly primary or unreliable sources, and a Google Books search finds nothing of interest. Sandstein 17:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The man held an exceptionally important post (one of the two chief administrative officers of the British Parliament) and was knighted, for crying out loud. Meets WP:GNG. Meets WP:ANYBIO #1. This deletionism is frankly getting silly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Holding an "important" post (or rather, an administrative role in the politically unimportant house of the legislature) does not, by itself, establish notability. GNG does, which requires substantial coverage in reliable sources, which you do not cite. As to ANYBIO, being knighted is, as I understand it, pretty much automatic at that level of administrative seniority (cf. "Sir Humphrey"); notably, the article does not imply that he obtained the award for any particular achievement. And receiving a title is only an indicator that a person is likely notable, not that they are guaranteed inclusion. If we do not have substantial secondary sources, we have no basis for an article. Sandstein 20:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of early-modern British women playwrights

List of early-modern British women playwrights (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 is a duplicate list of Chronology of early-modern British women playwrights, just sorted alphabetically. Either this functionally should be merged into that article, or just use a category like Category:Women writers (early modern), which already sorts alphabetically. Having to maintain two identical lists is pointless. Gonnym (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, Theatre, History, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Chronology of early-modern British women playwrights per above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: Merge article with the aforementioned Chronology of early-modern British women playwrights, per arguments above. —Mjks28 (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the 2022-created Chronology of early-modern British women playwrights into this 2006-created list, but convert to a table sortable on surname and birth and death dates (have to work out what to do with the "fl." people), to provide all the functionaliy of both lists. (Note that the inclusion criterion of "active ... before about 1800" seems rather loosely applied as Elizabeth Barrett Browning (1806-1861) is in both lists, although not in List of early-modern British women poets!) PamD 08:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Aikenhead

Aimee Aikenhead (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)

Redirect to List of Jersey women Twenty20 International cricketers as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cricket, and United Kingdom. JTtheOG (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This article has sources including BBC, Jersey Evening Post and ESPNcricinfo and links to several other pages on Wikipedia. The subject is a player for the Jersey women's national cricket team with 11 caps including in a T20 world cup qualifying tournament. What is the problem with it? Shrug02 (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrug02: How many of those include significant coverage of the subject? The number of caps and/or competitions played are not relevant. JTtheOG (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more information and sources as discussed with you. I was trying to create a complete set of pages for the Jersey women's cricket team excluding those players who have done nothing of note of course. Coverage of places such as Jersey is sparse so sources are often hard to come by. This does not make the subject matter irrelevant. I see you have now nominated a second of my pages for deleting and no doubt the rest will follow. I don't understand all these terms and abbreviations being used and I can't imagine I'll save them from deleting. I have worked for many hours to create these pages and in good faith. I will now stop. Thank you. Shrug02 (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Please also delete the following Jersey cricket players pages I created as this is obviously a subject matter unworthy of Wikipedia - Chloe Greechan, Patrick Gouge, Charlie Brennan, Nia Greig, Trinity Smith, Scott Simpson, Grace Wetherall, Analise Merritt, Charlie Miles, Mia Maguire, Georgia Mallet, Erin Gouge, Erin Duffy, Lily Greig, Florence Tanguy, Maria Da Rocha, Florrie Copley

Shrug02 (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Many of those look potentially notable (worthy of an article) – I wouldn't have them all deleted just out of being upset over this one being potentially deleted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the kind words (it is truly appreciated and nice to read) but I'm just getting ahead of the curve. Also, as you will have now seen as you've commented on both, it is not just one article that is being deleted. While other reviewers have seen no issue with any of them it seems I have fallen foul of one that sees no value in small places or sports not popular in certain parts of the world. I'm just saving them the time of hunting down my articles so they can have them removed. Shrug02 (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, no GNG coverage found. Coverage of places such as Jersey is sparse so sources are often hard to come by. is precisely what makes a topic non-notable: if IRS sources are not interested enough to give the subject significant coverage, then why should Wikipedia? JoelleJay (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what an IRS source is but if it means a local source than on Jersey there is basically one - the Jersey Evening Post - and that has been cited in this article more than once. My point over sources being sparse was that there is not the volume of sources in places like Jersey compared to the USA where there are hundreds of local newspapers, TV stations and websites along with national ones too. In Jersey there is basically the JEP plus the odd bit of coverage from the BBC. In reality it takes more to get one bit of coverage locally in Jersey than it does to get four or five or more in the USA. Hence you can have high school athletes in the USA with dozens of pieces of coverage for winning a small event but if you represent Jersey internationally you'll still only get one piece of coverage from the JEP. I hope that clarifies my remark. Shrug02 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People in the line of succession to the British throne

People in the line of succession to the British throne (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)

Line of succession to the British throne was merged and redirected in 2015 as a result of Talk:Succession to the British throne/Archive 2. This page is reliant on a single source that does not in fact list people in line. It lists descendants of the Electress Sophia who would be in line if they renounced their own religion, became Anglicans and adopted British nationality. In reality, for anyone so far down the line to inherit the British throne, the world would have had to endure a catastrophic disaster of such monumental proportions that it is extremely unlikely that the monarchy would exist. This content is not suitable for an encyclopedia because it is one wikipedian's selection of whom they consider to be the notable descendants of Sophia that is not representative of a wide-base of scholarly sources. DrKay (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. DrKay (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is nothing more than WP:OR. Keivan.f^Talk 12:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All your concerns would be satisfied by changing the title to List of living descendants of Sophia of Hanover. Also, the selection of living people is formulaic and not subjective, and thus does not fall under WP:OR, and further sources can certainly be added to refine the listing; these are reasons to improve the article, not delete it.

Also, the 2015 discussion is not relevant; the merged article only contained the short list of descendants of George V, and the outcome of the discussion was in fact to keep text referring to Reitwiesner's list. Lastly, your nomination itself is factually inaccurate: they need to be Protestant and not specifically Anglican, and I don't think there's a legal provision that they be British citizens; George I was certainly not when he ascended. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense. George was naturalized by the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 before his accession. DrKay (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay: I'll strike that part, but the other arguments stand. Do you have a source to support that, under current law, the monarch needs to be specifically Anglican and a British citizen to be in the line of succession? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with anything? Are you saying that we must maintain a list of people that has been put together randomly just because one of them that is non-British or non-Anglican might have a chance of ascending the throne of the United Kingdom? Well, that requires the mass elimination of the first 60 in line which is unlikely to happen any time soon. The whole list is nothing more than hypothetical cruft. Keivan.f^Talk 02:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing hypothetical about this. The list of people is firmly set in law. Whether it will ever actually be used is irrelevant to that. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is hypothetical when we don't have secondary sources grouping all these people together based on what their place could have been if the line of succession were to be extended that far. At the moment it's just a genealogical entry and WP:SYNTHESIS. Keivan.f^Talk 06:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonsense to state "if the line of succession were to be extended that far." There is a law that specifies the complete line of succession, and it does extend to everyone specified in the law. Your assertion that this later parts of the line of succession will never be used itself violates WP:CRYSTAL. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A law that you are interpreting yourself and then drawing conclusions about who could potentially be in this lengthy line of succession that no secondary source actually covers (i.e. WP:SYNTHESIS). The presumption that all these people could also drop dead together which would then force the Parliament to go look for a potential monarch from descendants of someone who died 310 years ago is in fact WP:CRYSTAL. Keivan.f^Talk 06:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually incorrect to represent this as "a law that you are interpreting yourself". The article is based on an independent secondary source. There are many other secondary sources on specific branches that could be added. WP:SYNTHESIS allows routine calculations, which I believe applies to extracting living members from a list of people, a task that is completely mechanical and allows for very little personal interpretation. I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Keivan.f. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: This article does appear to violate WP:OR. However, if the editors of this article wish to improve it by adding reliable and diverse citations and sources to an acceptable degree, then I think the article could remain. @Antony-22's suggestion to rename to article to List of living descendants of Sophia of Hanover would be another good solution to the issue raised by the AfD, as the article's current title does feel quite misleading. Mjks28 (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Largely WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and inevitably so in the absence of reliable secondary sources that extend beyond the top 50 or so in line. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Articles with a single source and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karin Vogel. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kendrick

Adam Kendrick (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced article about an actor (also known as Adamo Palladino), and added two sources. One is a passing mention and the other is an interview with a family member in the local paper. I don't believe he meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Equinox (Amiga demogroup)

Equinox (Amiga demogroup) (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. Surprisingly, there isn't significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu].

I am also bundling the disk magazine European Top 20 published by Equinox in this nomination. toweli (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. toweli (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise Miles

Cruise Miles (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)

Lack of referencing to prove notability. Source 1 is the best thing in the article, and it's fairly trivial (it's a promotion, not a news story). Sources 2, 5 and 7 are unavailable. Source 3 is an advert. Source 4 is clearly promotional copy. Source 6 deals with a different company and source 8 is not reliable. And the official website link in the External links section is dead. Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 12:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can only find their website on ROL Cruises and a few links to travel companies that offer this reward program. Noting for notability found; the source analysis in the nom is spot-on. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I could not find significant coverage in my searches for sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St David's School, Purley

St David's School, Purley (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school. The best I can find is this brief article in the local paper about the children making a music video, which seems run of the mill and not worth adding. I do not think the school meets WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Tacyarg (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability whatsoever. Cannot find anything else either. Procyon117 (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Charles

Jonathan Charles (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a journalist and added three references. Two are not independent, however, and the other is a passing mention. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST. The article has been marked as possibly not notable since 2020. Tacyarg (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Radio, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Have now added the archive of his BBC profile, but don't think that changes notability status. Tacyarg (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macleod Group

Macleod Group (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)

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Searches are also not yielding anything. Wikilover3509 (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Variable State

Variable State (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 company notability and the awards don't appear sufficiently exceptional. One paragraph about the founding, which could be merged. IgelRM (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United Kingdom. IgelRM (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unsatisfactory basis for deletion.

The company is noteworthy and is currently featured prominently in its industry press, as recently as 7 days ago:

https://www.gameinformer.com/news/2024/06/09/polaris-is-a-co-op-pve-shooter-coming-to-pc-this-year-with-fully-destructible

https://www.gematsu.com/2024/06/sci-fi-co-op-shooter-polaris-announced-for-pc

https://www.pcgamesn.com/polaris/new-sci-fi-pve-shooter

The company has been nominated for numerous prestigious awards, including 3 British Academy Game Awards. It is the recipient of a BAFTA for Music and has won the Writers Guild award for Best Writing in a Video Game.

Furthermore, the company remains active, developing and releasing games, and is considerably more active than other similar game companies whose pages are not nominated for deletion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campo_Santo_(company)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Sparrow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_Machine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simogo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messhof

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Road

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Squid_(company)

My concern is that this nomination for deletion is politically motivated rather than being a genuine suggestion. Deleting this page would be wildly inconsistent with the practice of deleting and updating other video game company pages.

This request for deletion should be cancelled at the earliest opportunity. Badlandssummary (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"My concern is that this nomination for deletion is politically motivated rather than being a genuine suggestion" what a very serious accusation. Do you have any proof to back that up at all or are you just saying that? Procyon117 (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is the only logical explanation for why this particular article has been singled out for deletion when numerous other video game company articles, related to video game studios of equivalent or lesser notoriety, have not been targeted in this way. Either apply a policy consistently or not at all. This deletion decision reflects very poorly on the instigator and those who defend it. It's an arbitrary, unliteral decision, and in the absence of a consistently-applied approach, feels like an attack. If you feel that accusation is serious, then so do I. It is incumbent on the deleter to explain why they are choosing a targeted attack and not a blanket policy. Badlandssummary (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided absolutely zero proof that this is "targeted" in any way, shape or form. We are humans, things are going to slip under the radar, and as others have said, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. Procyon117 (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it helps to know, but e.g. Giant Sparrow and Giant Squid (company) appear to fail notability too and I or someone else might nominate them as well. IgelRM (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Badlandssummary (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you spamming the same thing three times? Procyon117 (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, a mistake on the editor's part. This is my first experience dealing with a deletion request. And given the request seems so targeted and wildly inconsistent with the rules applied to other comparable and lesser-known game studios, I felt a sense of panic and my emotions were running hot. I don't understand why this article has been singled out in this way. If a rule is going to be applied consistently across all video game studios, then I would understand it, but if this particular article is going to be the target of a political action, that seems unjustified and against the spirit of this website. Badlandssummary (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've elected to remove them, as I assume them to be mistaken on the editor's part. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete They seem like a perfectly fine studio and they even arguably have a piece of SIGCOV at GamesIndustry.biz, but notability is not inherited from a studio's games, therefore they fail WP:NCORP at the moment even if their games are in fact notable. Badlandssummary appears to be an WP:SPA, so if they really are a member of the studio or closely associated with it, then I urge them to read the guidelines on WP:COI rather than embarrass themselves by insulting editors and making WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, which will not prevent the article from being removed. Work with people to find notability, and if none can be found it probably doesn't belong. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I should also add that notability is not temporary; once you are notable you remain that way, we are not going and deleting Square (video game company) because they are no longer making games. It's getting there that is the problem, and often people with conflict of interest totally ignore notability when making a page because they are simply there to publicize. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are numerous items of significant coverage. This assessment feels extremely weak, particularly if you directly compare the Variable State article to other equivalent articles, such as those I've cited in my response above. Why would I feel embarrassed? I've not insulted anyone. I've made fair and justified accusations based on the unilateral decision to target a specific article, rather than apply a blanket policy. You are embarrassing yourself by making unsubstituted accusations as to my identity, when you have no basis for doing so other than your own opinion. If my tone is urgent and anxious, it is because I am witnessing an obvious injustice here and am disappointed in the hypocritical and targeted actions of a few editors who are not acting in the spirit of this website and community.

  Regarding articles highlighting the noteworthiness of this studio, I would direct you to the following:

  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gaming/what-to-play/virginia-review--the-x-files-meets-twin-peaks-in-a-remarkable-in/

  https://time.com/4498103/virginia-review-pc-xbox/

  https://www.gameinformer.com/games/virginia/b/playstation4/archive/2016/09/22/game-informer-virginia-review.aspx

  https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-09-22-virginia-review

  https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/289831?

  https://www.pcgamer.com/virginia-wins-the-writers-guild-of-great-britains-prize-for-best-game-writing/

  https://www.gamespot.com/articles/nominees-for-2017-independent-games-festival-award/1100-6446752/

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csmZMNXWZrw

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb_IkGzFY1o

  https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/how-virginias-cinematic-editing-works

  https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/road-to-the-igf-variable-state-s-i-virginia-i- Badlandssummary (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They are all discussing the video game, Virginia. Which already has an article here and is indisputably notable. We're talking about the studio, though, which none of those articles are specifically about.

  Saying a deletion nomination is based on politics with zero proof is not "fair and justified". Seriously, you'll want to stop the ad hominem insults claiming actions are "targeted" against you with no evidence whatsoever or you will definitely be blocked for incivility. Yes, there are plenty of spammy game studio articles on Wikipedia, that does not absolve your article from needing to be notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My criticism of your argument is threefold:

  1) What good is any policy if it is not applied consistently and fairly? The subject of the article clearly passes a higher notoriety threshold than other examples I have given in this discussion, so why should it be singled out? Furthermore, its content is more widely sourced and more thoroughly cited than many of the other examples I have provided. As such, if this article is to be singled out, that implies an injustice, and a policy which is being exploited for partisan reasons. If you were a parking attendant who found a street full of cars with no parking tickets, would it be fair and reasonable for you to cherry pick specific cars to receive penalties? No, that'd be judged as prejudiced and irrational. It is similarly prejudicial to target this article on the basis of an infraction of policy when there are worse offenders elsewhere which are not receiving similar attention. Fairness is the cornerstone of justice.

  2) The accusation of ad hominem against me has no basis. My challenge to the editor who triggered this deletion process was to explain why this article had been singled out, when so many more articles fall far below the standard of content and citation in this article. Therefore, it is only reasonable to ask why the policy being used to support the deletion decision is being applied in a narrow and targeted manner, rather than consistently and fairly applied. It implies an agenda or political motive.

  3) The accusation of "incivility" is spurious in the extreme. If you claim my tone of my replies, which have most certainly not involved foul or threatening language, are of greater concern than the unilateral decision to delete an article which comprises many hours of hard work and which meets the standard met by other equivalent article, then I question your ethics. I recognise no incivility in my conduct, merely a justified distress at both the obliteration of my work, representing hours and days of my life, and the unjust way in which this process is being conducted.

  If this results in my being banned, then I am being excluded from a community which does not value evidence, fairness, or justice, and which wields its authority in a selective and inconsistent manner, in which case I shall perceive it as no slight. I am grateful my remarks here serve as my public testimony. I am not embarrassed by them. They have been made in good faith. Badlandssummary (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Clearly you did not read the linked WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because it explains in detail why your (1) and (2) argument and your entire claim of unfairness is false. Messhof, which you linked, is also probably non-notable. In that case it *should* be deleted, but nobody got around to it yet. However, the fact that yours did not slip past the radar does not mean the nominator was playing favorites. It's possible they did not even realize it was not notable as it was created 7 entire years ago when they may or may not have been there checking new pages. Some straight-up hoaxes have existed for 10+ years simply because nobody found them, it's very easy for stuff to slip past the radar sometimes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (Although I realized that Messhof is judged differently as we have different policies for individual developers as we do companies; WP:NCORP is more stringent than WP:NARTIST, probably due to how common it is for companies to attempt to game the system.) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But these game developer companies are just personal studios of creative professionals here, so there isn't really a difference for notability. The article with be the same if Burroughs and Kenny collectively are notable as creative professionals. IgelRM (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because other bad things exist doesn't mean we get to keep this bad thing. What political motivation are you even implying here? What political ideology or agenda is demonstrated in this article that would be targeted? What "community that doesn't value evidence" are you speaking out against? What the fuck are you even talking about? λ NegativeMP1 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They don't realise that things can pass under the radar, and their arguments certainly aren't helping their case. Procyon117 (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Zx. Also, I feel like there is some WP:COI problem here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I reviewed this articles GAN (which, quite frankly, should have never even happened because of how poorly written it was), I got the feeling that this topic wasn't notable, but that's a topic I personally believe should be kept out of GAN as it's not one of the criteria. This discussion further proves to me that this topic likely isn't notable if the article creator is resulting to personal attacks and accusations instead of actually demonstrating how this topic is worthy for inclusion on Wikipedia. λ NegativeMP1 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but we should still evaluate the studio's notability independently which only Zx has really done so far. The political accusations are undue but I think the the creator is still acting in good faith overall. In any case, some WP:ATD would seem easily applicable given the established game articles. Maybe my nomination was partially because the article doesn't appear in a good state. The GamesIndustry.biz feature is significant (was hard to tell with all the sources about specific game development) and the Develop studio nomination might signify recurring coverage. I hope this in retrospect somewhat bold nomination helps clarify how "game studio biography"-like articles are evaluated. IgelRM (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stated in my message that "I got the feeling that this topic wasn't notable." My stance on this companies notability was separately assessed. I'll agree with you on GamesIndustry.biz being significant, but one source isn't enough. λ NegativeMP1 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per ZX.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LNER Class Y11

LNER Class Y11 (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 tagged as unsourced, and indeed is unsourced, since 2015. Propose merging into another suitable article, as this doesn't appear to meet notability requirements - a search doesn't yield any reliable sources. Danners430 (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Danners430 (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources don't need to be online (and did you check the LNER Encyclopedia link?). I'm not at home right now, but I'm certain that there is information in several books, such as Boddy, M. G.; Fry, E. V.; Hennigan, W.; Hoole, Ken; Yeadon, W. B. (November 1988). Fry, E. V. (ed.). Locomotives of the L.N.E.R., part 10A: Departmental Stock, Locomotive Sheds, Boiler and Tender Numbering. Lincoln: RCTS. ISBN 0-901115-65-7.. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If those are sources, then perfect - makes perfect sense to have them! Unfortunately I don’t have access to them, nor did I know of their existence… and they weren’t in the article anywhere hence the AfD. Would make sense to add them as sources and close this! Danners430 (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge With an existing article, Motor Rail, this article is not notable enough, furthermore, it doesn't have any sources. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of sources. Obscure and small in number doesn't mean non-notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Though a big supporter of mergers, concluding that this is a reasonable and notable SPINOFF. gidonb (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Live (British TV program)

Saturday Live (British TV program) (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 was created in 2009 by a user who hasn't edited since then. According the article itself, it was a two hour long show that ran from 2005 to 2011. A WP:BEFORE search would appear to indicate some questions about whether this purported Sky News show actually ever happened. WP:NTV would appear to be applicable here. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom, this article has somehow been around for 15 years, and yet has zero sources (violating WP:OR) and only consists of 3 sentences; one of which is incomplete. Mjks28 (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trotskyist International Liaison Committee

Trotskyist International Liaison Committee (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 is yet another obscure Trotskyist international with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the two currently cited sources, one is from the organisation's own successor's publication; the other is Robert Alexander's book, which only mentions the TILC briefly in passing, in a section about the Revolutionary Workers League. A search on Google Scholar yields only two results: a mirror of a Swedish Wikipedia page, and a Czech PhD thesis, which only references it once it in a long list of Trotskyist internationals.[2]

As this doesn't appear to meet our guidelines on the notability of organizations, I recommend this article be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per nom. Yue🌙 01:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lodge

Michael Lodge (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)

WP:BLP about the leader of an organization, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for leaders of organizations. As always, just having a job is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but the content here is strictly on the level of "he is a person who has a job, the end", with absolutely no content about any specific things he did in the job, and the "referencing" consists entirely of his primary source staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers rather than any evidence of third-party reliable source coverage about his work in media or books. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added five more references to the point where I believe it passes WP:GNG, and I believe further references could be found to expand further. His role in shaping an international regulatory framework for deep sea mining seems significant. Uhooep (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone check out the sources added by Uhooep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Parker (police officer)

Edward Parker (police officer) (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 meet criteria of notability Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Seem to be police officers all over the world with this name... I get hits from the US, Australia and elsewhere, but nothing for this person. I'm not seeing more than a one or two line biography here, unsure of the notability. Lack of sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Coverage here in the Sydney Morning Herald from 1930 including biographical information [3]. A google books search focused on "Edward Parker" and "Special Branch" does identify a number of hits ([4]). There is potential for meeting notability guidelines therefore as an WP:ATD I suggest moving to draftspace for incubation. ResonantDis_tortion 10:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning toward delete based on discussion so far, but at least a little more discussion would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mint Velvet

Mint Velvet (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 clothing brand. Most coverage discussing the brand is actually coverage of its founder, Liz Houghton. In a brief search I found only two detailed writeups: this piece in Vogue which reads like a press release, and this article indicating the brand was acquired by another company in 2019. What little content is here could easily be merged to Liz Houghton. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenstein (film)

Ravenstein (film) (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:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Coverage is limited to promotional announcements of upcoming screenings in a local paper ([5]), awards published by non-notable film festivals and primary sources. Rotten Tomatoes lists no critics' reviews; searching online, I was able to find only this, which is an unreliable one-man blog. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: It could have been redirected to the director with the local source mentioned above but....the nominator just moved their page to DRAFTspace five minutes before nominating their films....so no choice, if we don't want to editwar and make this very confusing...let's DRAFTitfy this and maybe users can make one or two or three decent pages with redirects and merge of content. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even taken all together none of the sources really seem viable for writing either an article about the director or the films. The totality of coverage in independent sources across the articles is the local paper announcement and a review of another film in a maybe-reliable indie source ([6]). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, maybe, I don't know. But since you draftified the article on the director, I think we should draftify this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 English Channel disaster

November 2021 English Channel disaster (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 article concerns a single incident of the ongoing English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present) and does not need to have its own article. Firsttwintop (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, France, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (at least for now) - I could be wrong but it being the most deadly of these reported incidents makes it notable right? Maybe in the future if (heaven forbid) something else happens that may not ring true but right now it is. 2406:5A00:CC0A:9200:F885:F46D:3F46:5787 (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main article notes the incident properly: "On 24 November, the deadliest incident on record occurred. An inflatable dinghy carrying 30 migrants capsized while attempting to reach the UK, resulting in 27 deaths and one person missing. The victims included a pregnant woman and three children.". It would therefore fortify the request for it to be deleted simply because it lacks notability and it is not news. It is not appropriate in the context of the main article to create a standalone article for this one incident. Firsttwintop (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). This information isn't useless, but it belongs in the article about the main subject. There's no reason to split off random pieces of the topic into their own articles. Firsttwintop, did you create an account just to nominate it for deletion? There's no rule against that, but it's unusual. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The information is already on the article, but I support the gist of the proposal. Firsttwintop (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 27 is a significant number of deaths. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. As an aside, it's interesting that this nomination (originally a PROD) was one of this editor's first edits. How did you even know about AFDs?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep. This appears to be a well-referenced and not-insignificant disaster. BD2412 T 00:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The references are more than adequate to justify keeping this disaster and its consequences as a separate article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). The article is one separate event of a series of migrant crossings that have been going on for years. It may be overtaken in the future by a higher number of deaths. There is no reason for individual events of this series of migrant crossings to have their own page when they can be properly accommodated in English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). Mariawest1965 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This incident is notable not just from the large loss of life, but also because the level of public interest in that led both to the revelations about how the boat traffic was being treated by "rescue" services, and to some political/policy changes. That meets WP:EVENT and needs the more detailed record that this generally-well-referenced article provides, rather than shoe-horning just a brief summary into the main article. - Davidships (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present): the event is just another event of the migrant crossings, not justifying the separation of the single event from the main article, and could possibly be displaced as being the most deaths in migrant crossings in the future. MonsterRacer1 (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  MonsterRacer1, how did you find this AFD on your first edit? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was reading the article and saw that it had been nominated for deletion; then I read the main article and found the information on the main article too, so I thought I would join in the discussion. MonsterRacer1 (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, no one has supported the nomination with a specific delete !vote, but the !votes are divided between keep and merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the point of this AfD nomination. This clearly fulfills WP:NEVENT given the sheer amount of coverage it has received. The article is well written and sourced, so no major cleanup needed either. This article counts 1300+ words, and the proposed merger would include most of its content into a page that has less than double the amount of words, giving WP:UNDUE weight to this single event. Keep is in my opinion the only possible option. Broc (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article addresses a notable subject; 27 deaths (a large number) and the deadliest incident recorded by the IOM in the English Channel. Article also has multiple citations, so it is well researched. —Mjks28 (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I propose to modify the discussion so that the deletion discussion be simultaneously interpreted as a merge discussion to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). I still think the points I have made are relevant and others have shared similar views. It is already in the article so merging it would effectively achieve the same outcome, but I do not think it deserves its own wholly separate article, for something so insignificant in a huge series of migrant crossings. Firsttwintop (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be inappropriate, I think, and would muddy the water. The points being made and due weight to be given to them can be easily handled by the uninvolved closer in due course. - Davidships (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romy Tiongco

Romy Tiongco (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 article does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Philippines, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think the two programmes on the BBC all about him and the first of these and its report his on him were what led me to start this page and think him notable enough - perhaps via general notability rather than as a politician per se. A political activist, NGO worker and then politician (Msrasnw (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment - maybe you should find more sources, only 2 out of the 7 sources work.

  TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If there are 2 "working" sources, that should be enough for WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  One of the sources is a video source which does not work anymore, is one source okay? TheNuggeteer (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Our "policy" on this is WP:LINKROT, and it being dead should not be taken against the article, more so if the reference is more than a decade old.

  So no, your premise of this article having just one source doesn't hold. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I did a WP:BEFORE search outside of the sources in the article and can't find anything which suggests to me that the article passes WP:GNG. The non-working links do not necessarily suggest there was secondary coverage of him, either - the magazine just has a wordpress site and the BBC radio bit is an interview, which are not secondary. SportingFlyer T·C 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simpasture railway station

Simpasture railway station (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 GNG. Of the seven sources, two are trivial mentions, four don't mention the station at all, and one (Priestley) has brief mentions of a station of similar name but many decades earlier. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. Sadly, this now-gone depot was only notable at a local level. TH1980 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It existed at one point and is documented to have. Why not accept it was once around when ROF Aycliffe existed. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP: Consistency and per WP: Notable. As it's got coverage in quite a few books and articles. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Once again, you're making up a non-existent "consistency" policy, this article cites no books, and the citations present do not give significant coverage of the station. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It existed at one point and is documented to have. So you should get over it and accept it was once around when ROF Aycliffe existed. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't need to "get over" anything, train stations are not notable on Wikipedia simply by virtue of once existing, per community consensus. You don't get to ignore community consensus just because it's your article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on the quality of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Clarence Railway per nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It existed DragonofBatley (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The WP:IDHT is strong with you, train stations are not notable solely for having once existed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  P. Off DragonofBatley (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like No consensus. When presenting your argument, please cite current, relevant policy and guidelines and focus on the article and its sources, not other contributors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clarence Railway as a WP:ATD. S5A-0043^Talk 21:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP: Notability. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives

British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives (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)

Wholly unsourced article since 2009 Danners430 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Danners430 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Danners430, were you aware that there isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources? Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am aware. However, if you continue reading through that guideline, you’ll find more info - specifically regarding whether editors can find sources elsewhere. I’ve done a search through sources that I know of, and through search engines, and can’t find any sources whatsoever. As per that guideline, that seriously casts into question the notability of the article. Danners430 (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is contextless data with no indication of importance or discussion as a group in secondary sources; as such, it fails WP:NLIST. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I found a book source which I think is enough to establish the topic's notability. Smith, Paul; Smith, Shirley (2014). British Rail departmental locomotives 1948-1968 : includes depots and stabling points. Hersham: Ian Allan Publishing. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-7110-3800-4. OCLC 897871236. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. These statistics are not given any context or meaning. Eastmain above fails to distinguish between departmental locomotives as a whole (we already have British Rail departmental locomotives) and eastern region departmental locomotives. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – there is a whole chapter devoted to this subject in volume 10A of Locomotives of the LNER. I have added this source as a reference to the article, along with one for each main section. I don't mind expanding it to one citation for each loco, but it a fair amount of work, and it would be a waste of my time is the article is deleted...

The source also states the location the locos were used at.

This is also part of a series of three articles – the second covers the Southern Region and the third every other region. — Iain Bell (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a series? These are just lists, and British Rail departmental locomotives could easily hold the entire contents of this article if people think it's worth including in the encyclopedia. Splitting them up seems arbitrary and not particularly helpful. We don't need three articles where one would do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - First and foremost, I concur with Eastmain that sources exist to demonstrate notability, and two of these sources have been integrated into the article as of time of nomination. By definition, GNG is satisfied. Being said, looking at WP:NVEHICLE, this subject falls somewhere between the "type" and "subtype" categories in my view, and leans towards the "subtype" classification, falling under the "type" of British Rail departmental locomotives. Beyond functioning as a quasi-"list of" article, prose in this article focus predominantly on the history and numbering structure, which would substantively improve British Rail departmental locomotives. Ergo, I !vote that the article be merged and redirected to a subsection of that article. Ultimately, I will also cite ease of navigation as a factor to consider here. The linking between these articles, especially without the 'British railway locomotives and miscellany, 1948 to present' navbox on some mobile platforms, makes information unnecessarily segmented across articles. Condensing and combining content here seems the best course of action. Bgv. (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the two sources enough to establish notability? Are there more sources we are missing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect: Although this information is sourced now, I don't think there is much point treating the Eastern region in a separate article (same for SR departmental locomotives, as far as I'm concerned.) — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail DHP1

British Rail DHP1 (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)

Wholly unsourced article since 2009 Danners430 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: without sources. Nothing came up on Google. RolandSimon (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Danners430 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There just isn't anything written about this that I can find [7], a photo there, and [8], a magazine that won't open for me... I'd maybe merge this into the list of British locomotives, but it's unsourced regardless. I mean, the information came from somewhere, but we don't have a source identified... Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find any evidence of SIGCOV, and no suitable redirect target seems to exist. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unfortunately, unless offline sourcing exists (which wouldn't surprise me). I found a couple of sources that were neither in-depth nor reliable which suggest that British Rail Class 17 (on which it was based) would make an appropriate merge target if we can verify the information. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge British Rail Class 17 or Clayton Equipment Company are the obvious places to look for a mention, but there isn't any there (the latter has a see also, the first has nothing). It's mentioned in the table at List of British Rail modern traction locomotive classes#Builders' demonstrators so that might also be a suitable merge target. Some more googling has found some things that prove existence and verify some of what is in the article:
    • [9] a primary sources, but it verifies it was a "Prototype 1500HP BoBo Diesel Hydraulic", the drawing contains a copyright date which might be useful but I can't read it.
    • [10] indicates that there is a lot more information available from the manufacturer, but being primary that would all speak to verifiability not notability.
    • [11] This copy of a Railways Illustrated article (see PDF page 3) has a small amount of information, and presumably counts as a secondary source.
    • [12] A review of this book indicates that it includes information about the DHP1, but as I don't have a copy I can't say too much.
    • [13] This forum post has some quotes from an article in Classic Diesels and Electrics magazine issue 3 (December 1997/January 1998) described elsewhere as "Major", it also notes that there was at least a drawing in Modern Locomotives Illustrated No 174. I've not been able to find either magazine online. However, combined with the number of models of it that exist, I'm satisified that notability is demonstrated. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    After thinking about this a bit more, I now think that Clayton Equipment Company would be the best place to merge this to as most of the sources frame it in the context the manufacturer, the relationship to Class 17 is limited and not only does the list article not really having anywhere great to put a section of prose it feels a bit undue to have that much detail about an individual entry. As for whether to merge or keep as a stand-alone article, I might be leaning towards the former but I'd not describe either as a clear preference at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is basically unverifiable. Even if it were conclusively proven to exist it would only merit a brief mention within the Class 17 article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think there is any serious doubt that this existed and was based on the Class 17. I haven't found a reliable source that states this but the variety and nature of the unreliable ones I've found leaves me in no doubt. However we do need reliable sources, and while I would be surprised if such didn't exist they haven't been found yet. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If this conclusively exists, a redirect wouldn't hurt, but the question is where do you redirect it to? I don't think this is mentioned in any other article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See also my newer comment above, but there is a mention at List of British Rail modern traction locomotive classes#Builders' demonstrators. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This looks like a clear delete but additional sources were brought to the discussion yesterday and it would be nice to have them assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not a single source provided to support the locomotive's existence. ADifferentMan (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a picture of it above in my link, but that's not helping notability. It exists. Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ADifferentMan I provided 5 sources above that prove it exists. It's less clear whether it is notable enough for a stand-alone article, but it's not a slam-dunk no (or yes) and existence is not in doubt. Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assessment of the additional sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I won't mark this as a vote, because I opened this discussion... going by the lack of engagement alone, I would be inclined to suggest this be closed as a Delete or Merge (as proposed by Thryduulf). We can't keep relisting the AFD forever... Danners430 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf's digging. It also has some coverage in Modern Railways of its time.

I wouldn't merge to the class 17 article because, despite the maker and cab similarities, they're very different locos. The engines are different (and there are twice as many) and the bogies are too, as the hydraulic has mechanical final drives rather than traction motors. Mostly the DHP1 would probably have avoided the 17's best known feature, its awful unreliability. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

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

Virgin Atlantic Flight 024

Virgin Atlantic Flight 024 (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)

Minor aviation incident, no serious injuries or fatalities, not a hull loss, no impact on aviation regulations or the air transportation system generally; in summary, no WP:LASTING impact. The incident can be adequately discussed in the Heathrow Airport and Airbus A340 articles (perhaps tellingly, there is no mention of the incident in either article as I write this). Carguychris (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Carguychris (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• keep This is a clear incident with wounded people. The Banner talk 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:The Banner, can you expand a bit beyond direct impacts, here injuries sustained plus damage both to the vessel and infrastructure? gidonb (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Routine airline mechanical incident that resulted in no deaths or serious injuries, plus WP:NOTNEWS. "Wounded people" is certainly not a viable rationale for keeping the article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 23:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:PERSISTENCE, for example in: [1.] A Sociology of Commercial Flight Crew, By Bennett Simon, 2016 (originally 2006), Publisher: Taylor & Francis. [2.] The Virgin Way: Everything I Know About Leadership, By Richard Branson, 2014. Publisher: Penguin. [3.] Virgin Atlantic, By John Balmforth, 2009. Publisher: Midland. Item #1 is even a WP:CASESTUDY. gidonb (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gidonb: Could you give more iformation so we can locate the sources, and if possible, check them out for ourselves? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete There is this: [14], not certain about reliability. Otherwise it's just routine day-by-day reporting, no WP:LASTING. All other information found is either mundane database entries or trivial. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow! Great find! That's already 4 cases WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, this time from 2024! How does such persistent coverage correspond with your conclusion? gidonb (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources found by gidonb. Whether people were killed/injured/wounded are made up criteria that have nothing to do with notability and are not considered in a valid close. I would not object to a merge to one of the articles mentioned by Carguychris per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CarReg UK

CarReg UK (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)

Likely to fail WP:NCORP KH-1 (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delight Mobile

Delight Mobile (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 is a bundled nomination of five articles on UK MVNOs failing the notability guidelines for companies/products. They are part of a larger set of seven created by the same author in October 2011: two have since been deleted, one through PROD and the other through AfD.

The other four are:

• Dalya Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dialog Vizz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Now PAYG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stan Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rather than continue the slow trickle of individual deletions, I figure it makes more sense to discuss them all at once. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Kingdom, and England. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Clark (Politician)

James Clark (Politician) (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)

WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As usual, unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability test at NPOL is winning the election and thereby holding the office, while a candidate gets to have an article in advance of the election only if he can credibly claim to have already established permanent notability for other reasons besides the mere fact of being a candidate per se. But this makes no such claim, and is not referenced anywhere near well enough to claim that he would somehow pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation after July 4 if he wins the seat, but nothing here is grounds for him to already have an article now. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Besides being a political candidate, I don't see notability. This reads as a biography, likely to help the political aspirations. I'm not finding anything beyond routine coverage of a political candidate, which helps inform the local populace, but not really helpful for Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: the page is less than 90 days old and the subject might meet WP:NPOL if he wins the seat in the upcoming election. Notability criteria are not met yet, neither per WP:GNG nor WP:NPOL. Broc (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat. We generally do not want to keep drafts of political candidates as they could become a repository for campaign material. --Enos733 (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or draftify. I really think there should be a policy for candidates in the general election, as it feels like WP:PROMO regardless of the author. Orange sticker (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TransPennine Express (disambiguation)

TransPennine Express (disambiguation) (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)

Since there are only two other topics that could be known as the 'Transpennine Express', I think that this dab page is not needed/useful. A hatnote at the main TPE article linking to the two could suffice JuniperChill (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Disambiguations, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JuniperChill (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. JuniperChill, I think you hint at WP:2DABS yet I see 3 items at the disambiguation page. Can you clarify? gidonb (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb I said 'two OTHER topics' per WP:TWOOTHER. I think you are confused that on the main TransPennine Express page, it will have links to the two pages TransPennine Express (2016–2023) and First TransPennine Express via a hatnote. Basically, TPE has a primary topic with two other topics is another way to put it. JuniperChill (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, yet we do not have a rule against disambiguation pages with three items either. gidonb (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No policy reason to delete this valid disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Please refrain from unnecessary AfDs. There are way too many AfDs. gidonb (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Taylor (singer-songwriter)

Sean Taylor (singer-songwriter) (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:SINGER. Most references from same minor blog, some other interview on Google but all promotional. Orange sticker (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Orange sticker (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why has this page been submitted for deletion? It features an international touring artist, Sean Taylor and all of the references and resources are correct. I received an email from someone working from Wiki Crafter saying the page was scheduled for deletion ...

  Please stop this page from deletion Sean Taylor Songs (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep: This [15] and this [16] cover this individual. Not the best sourcing, but should be fine. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not the best" is remarkably charitable. The former reference is an interview with the subject; the latter is mostly written by the subject. Rather than "not the best", perhaps "feeble". -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment have left User:Sean Taylor Songs notices on their talk page about WP:COI and the WP:AFD policies. Orange sticker (talk) 08:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as sources (incl. the ones found by Oaktree b) don't meet WP:GNG, and there's nothing in the article to suggest WP:MUSICBIO notability either. Haven't done a BEFORE, I assume OP did that, but happy to reconsider if someone presents some evidence of notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spartans Futsal Club

Spartans Futsal Club (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 evidence of notability. Unable to locate independent reliable sources which discuss the subject in detail. C679 07:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. C679 07:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of York Swift Society

University of York Swift Society (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 is a non-notable student society with the article being hung on the non-notable event of Taylor Swift sending something or other to the society. Tagishsimon (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:INHERITORG This is, in essence, a celebrity fan club. It's not a new term for any fan club, but is more often used by British fan clubs. Movie stars and rock stars have had thses so-called "appreciation societies" for decades. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This topic is not really encyclopedic, this should be, at most, merged into a larger article on the Swift fandom such as Swifties. Whizkin (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of Stonehenge

Vandalism of Stonehenge (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 event is fully covered in a short paragraph in the main Stonehenge article. The idea that something which happened yesterday and was cleaned up today with no lasting effects needs a whole article with the sweeping title 'Vandalism of Stonehenge' is unreasonable. Attempts to query the notability of this article, or to expand its scope to match the title, have been rebuffed by the creator, which rather smacks of WP:OWN. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Just_Stop_Oil#2024: Per OP. Not independently notable when this is one among many Just Stop Oil protests. — Czello ^(music) 09:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge whatever is salvageable to Just Stop Oil per OP. WP:NEVENT is relevant. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge where appropriate and delete. Given the tabby choice of title I'm agnostic if we need even the redirect. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge whatever is appropriate to Just Stop Oil. I was tempted to nominate it myself, but thought for some reason we should wait one week or so when coverage inevitably stops. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  With that said, I would be down to expand the scope to all acts of vandalism on Stonehenge. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 13:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the title is simply "Vandalism of Stonehenge" so this article could be used to cover all vandalism attempts on the monument. Otherwise Merge as above— Iadmc♫^talk  11:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just another stunt from them. No damage - not interesting. Secretlondon (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from creator — I absolutely did not say the scope couldn’t be expanded. In fact, my only comment regarding notability of the article was to note that LASTING could not be proven, and that a reassessment should occur in a week for notability. I am not going to !vote here, however, GenevieveDEon put words into my mouth in this WP:RAPID deletion attempt. I personally ignore the nomination reasoning by GenevieveDEon for that reason, however, all other comments (keep, merge, or delete) from other editors I will be looking at extensively and appreciate all the responses. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, I see that the large additions that were removed were from IP users trying to make the page be about the nearby road tunnel. That's obviously not appropriate in any case. But it does highlight a deeper problem: the concept of 'vandalism' is not culturally or politically neutral, and deciding what should be included or excluded from such a general article would be very difficult. As it stands, this article is still undue emphasis on a very short-lived and likely insignificant event. I also note that User:WeatherWriter tagged me with the 'climate change is a contentious subject' talk page template. This isn't about climate change. I have no interest in the purported subject matter of the protest. My position would be the same whatever the purpose of the protest - a separate article is unnecessary. And calling this "the vandalism of Stonehenge" was, is, and remains ludicrous. We're not here to elevate utterly trivial news stories into separate encyclopedic topics. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tag on your talk page is a required thing per WP:CTOPICS. This was a protest related to climate change and as such, first-alert topics are given to editors in the field of articles regarding climate change. Nothing directed towards you. You statement "This isn't about climate change" is absolutely false, since Just Stop Oil is a climate-change related organization. Please do not focus on the editor and focus on the content. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I regard it as rather targeted, because you didn't add the tag to the Vandalism of Stonehenge article itself when you created it, but only when you were tagging various places including my talk page, after I had made this nomination. And I'm not sure it's a sensible use of the contentious topics policy for you to create an unnecessary (and untagged) article about a very minor event somewhat connected with the contentious topic, and then start throwing around the template once someone challenges that creation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please strike the comment above as it does not pertain to the content of the article and is directly entirely at me. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's about how you handled the marking of the article in question, and related pages, as being related to a contentious topic only when it served to criticise this deletion discussion. My comment stands. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely obvious you're targeting us with those contentious topics alerts because we want your article merged away, WeatherWriter. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? CTOPIC notices are a required thing to do. As explained to GenevieveDEon at the administrators noticeboard. After the discussion was opened up there, all the accusations of OWNing, POV-pushing, and alleged targeting were taken back by GenevieveDEon. Please don't make the same mistake and accuse me. On a brief inspection, two minutes earlier, you removed the CTOPICs notice, which you are perfectly allowed to do (with indicates you acknowledged it). In your edit summary, you stated, "where did I edit an article under that?" Does that mean you do not consider this to be even slightly related to climate change? If the answer is yes, then you are not ready to edit in the CTOPICs area. Also, before you accuse me further that I am targetting because "we want your article merged away", you should do your homework and see that I too support merging it. Please strike the accusations and I would strike this entire comment insuit. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As above, you've only tagged the article for CTOPs when the discussion got heated. I'm not striking my comment, by the way. I stand by it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentatively telling people "you are not ready to edit in the CTOPICs area" in response to comment on their own WP:INAPPNOTE is itself highly inappropriate. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DELAY is also listed right above WP:RAPID. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Just Stop Oil#2024 as per above. For vandalism attempts other than the Just Stop Oil one, they would be more suitable for inclusion in the Stonehenge article. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand Scope or Merge — The scope of the article should be expanded to cover all acts of vandalism to Stonehenge throughout history. If that cannot be agreed apon, then I support a complete merge (the entire article content) into Just Stop Oil. I would also encourage other editors to consider the scope expansion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. "Vandalism of Stonehenge" suggests the article is about the concept of vandalism of Stonehenge and is confusing when it turns out to be about one specific incident. SystemPhantom (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - and expand scope. There must have been similar incident etc in the past. Sourcs are good and notability fow now obvious.BabbaQ (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I regard that as an unncessary content fork - there's not enough on this in the main Stonehenge article to warrant it. When there is, then such a fork would be worth considering. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Incident appears to be a run of the mill publicity stunt with no long term significance specific to this event. Subject fails WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:SENSATIONAL and the WP:10YT. Arguably this is a good example of why we should not rush to create articles about recent events. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While I appreciated the appearance of this entry when I was looking for more information on this breaking story, even then I was doubtful that it needed its own page. Also, it should be noted that I went to the Stonehenge page first, and either the incident hadn't been added yet or I somehow missed it, otherwise I wouldn't have gone to this page at all. RogueLoreBard (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I dispute your assessment Ad Orientem that this fails GEOSCOPE. I highly doubt the Associated Press, CNN, and Fox News are "local" sources around Stonehenge. The rest I do not have a direct disagreement with, but I wanted to go ahead and dispute the GEOSCOPE argument stated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. There was international coverage. Though it has dropped drastically even in the UK which does not bode well for WP:SUSTAINED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Better to merge into Stonehenge surely? Rather than Just Stop Oil — Iadmc♫^talk  15:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't originally propose a merge at all, because there's already a more-than-sufficient mention of it in the Stonehenge article itself. (See the discussion on the talk page there about whether that's warranted.) The Just Stop Oil article needs some work in any case because it's tending to WP:PROSELINE at the moment, but I don't feel qualified to say whether merging this page into it would help that issue. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge. Article can be mentioned at both Stonehenge and Don't Stop Oil, in due weight fashion.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. No more notable than any of the other instances of immediately reversed vandalism from JSO. Sinclairian (talk) Sinclairian (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Stonehenge has been around 4,000 years and it'll be around 4,000 more. A feeble double act of environmental suffragettes taking 30 seconds to sprinkle orange flour over two of the stones doesn't warrant a mention in the main article, let alone its own. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:LASTING and WP:SENSATIONAL. This event is already mentioned in the Just Stop Oil article, and doesn't appear to be a more thorough coverage than appears in the JSO article. SmittenGalaxy (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Numberguy6 (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Just Stop Oil article, probably a prosed version briefly mentioning the event and reactions alongside would fit enough in that case. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Just Stop Oil article. 2601:441:5180:9500:4DC1:AC55:2555:9733 (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Dictionary describes vandalism as "action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property." This protest was neither destructive nor damaging therefore the title is false. 2601:1C0:577F:4070:39DB:2AFE:E080:8893 (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Just another one of their stunts involving criminal behaviour, does not merit a standalone article above any of their other ones. Should be merged into the main Stop Oil article. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Do not leave a redirect to Just Stop Oil as the title is too broad. ✶Quxyz✶ 16:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Just Stop Oil as it's one of their protests. This is Paul (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's already mention of it at Just Stop Oil article so nothing else sensible to merge. And oppose redirect since this isn't the only time in history that Stonehenge will have been vandalised. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge without redirect Supportive of either outcome. I think Just Stop Oil is a better target article than Stonehenge as this is too insignificant to warrant being in the latter. All that happened was that a small amount of corn-based colorant was sprayed on a couple of the rocks and stayed there for less than one day. Usually I'd argue that it takes more time than this to assess if an event has any WP:LASTING impact and that trying to rush to delete based on WP:LASTING would itself be WP:CRYSTAL. But it took nothing more than an air blower to remove the corn-based dye. This was just a publicity stunt that grabbed headlines by making it seem like they were causing some serious damage to a world heritage site, but in the end, they did nothing. If they wanted to cause some real damage, they probably would have used real paint instead of corn. They got the headlines they wanted, but this is the sort of story that belongs in a sensationalist tabloid paper, not an encyclopedia. Agree that this title is too broad to make it a redirect.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Create a new page, "vandalism of monuments" and mention it there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.24.27 (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. We're not creating a huge new WP:COATRACK article just to have a third place in which to mention this vanishingly unimportant news story that already gets coverage at Stonehenge and Just Stop Oil. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the modern history section. Merge content to Just Stop Oil. Not everything needs a separate article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Just Stop Oil as above seeing as this is a relatively minor event, and should just be added to JSO's list of protests. Yendetta (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Simple protest so do not keep or rename. There is sufficient content elsewhere so do not merge. Bad title so do not redirect. No need to salvage so do not draftify or userfy. Remains delete. gidonb (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kendrick

Adam Kendrick (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced article about an actor (also known as Adamo Palladino), and added two sources. One is a passing mention and the other is an interview with a family member in the local paper. I don't believe he meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uri Gordon (anarchist)

Uri Gordon (anarchist) (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, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO and lacks WP:SIGCOV. The sources here, as well as those found in a WP:BEFORE search, are primary in that they consist mainly of interviews and self-published works by the article subject. No in-depth, third party articles by reliable publications would be found. As an editor commented on the article Talk page, appearance in other language Wikis is not among criteria for evaluating notability for the English Wikipedia. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politics, Israel, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (not yet a !vote): his Google Scholar profile [17] shows three publications with triple-digit citation counts; this sounds strong to me but how does it compare to others in similar topics? I found and added to the article three published reviews (in academic journals from mainstream publishers) of his book Anarchy alive!, but I didn't find reviews for his other books Routledge Handbook of Radical Politics, Six Zionist Essays, Hier und jetzt: anarchistische Praxis und Theorie (maybe a translation of Anarchy alive!?), and Anarchists Against the Wall: Direct Action and Solidarity with the Palestinian Popular Struggle. Another review of at least a second book would be needed for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a wee note that Six Zionist Essays was written by a different Uri Gordon. — LittleDwangs (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing. Thanks for the correction. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a couple of reviews of Anarchists Against the Wall, one in Fifth Estate (Spring/Summer 2014, Vol. 49 Issue 1, p34-35) and one in Social Movement Studies (May 2016, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p335-338). — LittleDwangs (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1, WP:AUTHOR, and the additional reliably-published reviews found by LittleDwangs, which I have found links for and added to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I found the arguments by David Eppstein convincing.Whizkin (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per WP:PROF#C1 as discussed by David. --hroest 17:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:AUTHOR by sources indicated above. gidonb (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF#C1, WP:AUTHOR as above — LittleDwangs (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Anarchy Alive! There is no extended reliable, secondary source coverage of note about the author himself, discounting passing mentions and interviews (which are primary sources). The most that has been written about him are the academic reviews of his book Anarchy Alive which are already in that dedicated article, as they're more about the book than the author. That Anarchists Against the Wall has one academic review (not counting Fifth Estate, which is a partisan periodical) does not bring us any more closer to being able to write a dedicated biography that does justice to Gordon. The standard here is to cover the author within his book article, if he's better known for that book than for any other thing. czar 01:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise Miles

Cruise Miles (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)

Lack of referencing to prove notability. Source 1 is the best thing in the article, and it's fairly trivial (it's a promotion, not a news story). Sources 2, 5 and 7 are unavailable. Source 3 is an advert. Source 4 is clearly promotional copy. Source 6 deals with a different company and source 8 is not reliable. And the official website link in the External links section is dead. Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 12:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can only find their website on ROL Cruises and a few links to travel companies that offer this reward program. Noting for notability found; the source analysis in the nom is spot-on. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I could not find significant coverage in my searches for sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St David's School, Purley

St David's School, Purley (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school. The best I can find is this brief article in the local paper about the children making a music video, which seems run of the mill and not worth adding. I do not think the school meets WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Tacyarg (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability whatsoever. Cannot find anything else either. Procyon117 (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten

Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten (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)

WP:BLP issues - there are too many dubious and poorly-sourced claims in this article for an article about a living person. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bilateral relations, China, France, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I've tracked down a number of claims - service in Chinese parliament, involvement in Iran talks, chairing the East-West strategic studies institute, which are sourced and seem to raise at least a colorable claim of notability. The claim to serve in parliament is supported by The Diplomat article, but is probably misstated as it seems he took part in a Jilin Municipal level CPPCC meeting[18])] as opposed to service at the national level. Other claims like buying the palace, and testimony before parliament, are not very notable but are verifiable. And some other facts, like his history as a diplomat, are not well sourced although I haven't done searches to see if they are hoaxes. Why is this not a situation where the article can be edited rather than deleted? Oblivy (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - there are a number of issues with this article that have concerned me for some time. They are most obvious when you consider it in conjunction with a group of related articles: Institute for East West Strategic Studies, Pfetten's foundation; Apethorpe Palace, his home and the foundation's office; Owen Matthews, the foundation's vice-chair; and the International Foxhound Association - currently also up for deletion - which Pfetten chairs.

Promotional content - the content these editors add tends to be highly promotional. Counter wise, repeated efforts are made to remove anything they consider "negative";

Authorship and COI - User talk:Prinkipo71 is the major contributor to this article, and its originator. They are also the major contributor to, and originator of, the Matthews article. User talk:Baronpfetten has also edited this. Prinkipo71 is also the second major contributor to the Apethorpe Palace article. They have described themselves as "Apethope's archivist and historian",[19]. The first contributor to the Institute article is an IP, the second, and its originator, is User talk:Baronpfetten, a user name which suggests an obvious COI. Baronpfetten is also the major contributor to, and the originator of, the International Foxhound Association article. Both Prinkipo71 and Baronpfetten are broadly single-purpose accounts, in that they only edit this group of articles. I think it highly likely there is a bunch of undeclared COI. It is also worth noting the contributions of User talk:StevenGui/User talk:GeorgeThuiller, to these articles and to that on Tactical nuclear weapon, [20]. After an initial denial Gui acknowledged they were employed by the Chinese government, to which Pfetten has close links. Oddly, Thuiller - an editor with 11 edits - took it upon themselves to edit a comment made by Gui, on Gui's own Talkpage, to amend Gui's acknowledgement that they work "for" the Chinese Government, to suggest that they work "with" it, [21]. Apart from Gui, none of the other editors has made any Conflict of Interest declarations regarding these articles.

SPA/IP editing - this is very common to all of the above, and I strongly suspect Checkuser would find connections. See, as one example, these edits, [22] to the IFA deletion discussion by User:Tintin2004123 who joined two days ago, specifically to try to stop the deletion, the only edits they have ever made.

In short, I think these articles are a mess of promotional editing from editors/IPs, all certainly connected and all with undeclared COIs. I have previously flagged it with ARBs, but it has not been taken forward, as far as I am aware. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to my questions. I'm not sure this is something that falls within a deletion category, other than the catch-all not suitable tag (which is pretty weak sauce IMHO). OK, it's a coatrack, and it has assertions that are questionably supported by citations, and the language is promotional (although many biographies paint a positive picture of a person, particularly if they are not notorious for some bad thing). In my opinion, these content issues need to be worked out on article pages and talk pages, and not at AfD.

I'm also troubled that much of what you describe is based on suspicions of the editors, their conduct and their motives, rather than identifying notability issues with the article. AfD is not for conduct issues either. Surely if someone is being disruptive or displaying ownership behavior, there's a conduct guideline that can be invoked at ANI. Also, no policy says someone can't be an SPA, and AFAIK there's no policy saying you can't edit while under a COI (policy says "discouraged" and "should" regarding COI, disclosure is "must" for paid editing). Oblivy (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t doubt that you are procedurally right, and that AfD isn’t the best venue to address a lot of this. I would say that I have tried both the Talkpage discussion route, getting mostly silence or obfuscation; and the conduct reporting route, again getting silence. My concern is that what I am quite certain we have in these articles are editors writing about themselves/their interests, without being at all transparent as to their connections to the article subjects. For me, that fundamentally conflicts with our aim of being a reliable encyclopaedia, and does a grave disservice to our readers. KJP1 (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Although the article has a section for Academic career, the subject seems to have published very few articles or books. I see little to no sign of WP:NPROF notability. I am skeptical of GNG. His house does appear to possibly be notable, and I suppose that redirection to a stub about the house would be an option. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That may well be a way forward. I am very confident that Apethorpe Palace is notable, per Wikipedia:NBUILDING. It's a Grade I listed building, has a long and illustrious history, with notable owners/visitors, and it has been very extensively covered, in architectural publications, in historical journals and in the media. I'd certainly support a re-direct, which could also cover the Institute. KJP1 (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

  People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

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

  Sources
  1. Leclair De Marco, Stéphanie (2007-10-01). "Jean-Christophe Iseux : Le mandarin de la Loire" [Jean-Christophe Iseux: The mandarin of the Loire]. Les Echos (in French). Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

     The article notes: "A tout juste 40 ans, après une décennie passée en Chine, Jean-Christophe Iseux a décidé de revenir en France. Avec un projet en tête : faire de son château de la Loire un lieu de rencontre « personnel, élitiste et confidentiel, avec pas plus de 200 personnes ! » Sa cible ? Des leaders occidentaux et leurs homologues chinois et asiatiques. Ambitieux. Mais son excellente connaissance de la Chine et de ses gouvernants devrait lui permettre de réussir son projet. Son histoire d'amour avec l'empire du Milieu commence en 1996. Ingénieur géophysicien de formation, il oublie les sciences de la Terre pour celles de l'économie. Chercheur spécialisé dans la privatisation des entreprises d'Etat, passé par Oxford où, MBA en poche, il se concocte un remarquable carnet d'adresses, il devient le plus jeune représentant permanent aux Nations unies."

     From Google Translate: "At just 40 years old, after a decade spent in China, Jean-Christophe Iseux decided to return to France. With a project in mind: to make his Loire castle a “personal, elitist and confidential” meeting place, with no more than 200 people! » His target? Western leaders and their Chinese and Asian counterparts. Ambitious. But his excellent knowledge of China and its leaders should enable him to succeed in his project. His love affair with the Middle Kingdom began in 1996. A geophysicist engineer by training, he forgot Earth sciences for those of the economy. A researcher specializing in the privatisation of state enterprises, he went to Oxford where, with an MBA in hand, he built up a remarkable address book and became the youngest permanent representative to the United Nations."

  2. Yu, Ying 余颖; Zhao, Xinyi 赵欣怡 (2021-09-22). Wu, Yidan 武一丹; Yu, Ying 余颖 (eds.). ""在英国重新发现中国：红色男爵的中国故事"讲座成功举办" ["Rediscovering China in the UK: The Red Baron's Chinese Story" Lecture Successfully Held]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

     The article notes: "据介绍，易思男爵为法国贵族后裔，其家族与中国有深厚渊源。毕业于牛津大学坦普顿学院，曾任塞舌尔驻世贸组织代表、驻日内瓦裁军谈判会议代表、牛津大学管理学中心研究员、牛津大学赫特福德学院政策研究所中国研究中心主任等。从1997年起，易思男爵频繁赴华工作，先后担任清华大学访问学者、讲师、中国人民大学客座教授等，"

     From Google Translate: "According to reports, Baron Eise is a descendant of the French nobility, and his family has deep roots in China. He graduated from Templeton College, Oxford University, and has served as the Seychelles representative to the WTO, the representative to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, a researcher at the Oxford University Management Center, and the director of the China Research Center of the Hertford College Policy Institute, Oxford University. Since 1997, Baron Eise has frequently traveled to China for work, and has served as a visiting scholar and lecturer at Tsinghua University, and a visiting professor at Renmin University of China."

  3. Kennedy, Maev (2016-06-13). "Red Baron's Jacobean Apethorpe Palace marks its rebirth with party". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

     The article notes: "Just 18 months after Jean Christophe Iseux, Baron von Pfetten, spent £2.5m on a house with 48 bedrooms but no running water, he has decided to give a little party. ... Von Pfetten, a diplomat, Oxford academic and champion foxhound breeder, has been nicknamed “the Red Baron” for his years as an adviser to the Chinese government on everything from inward investment to Iran’s nuclear programme; the Chinese guests will include a government member and the head of an oil company."

  4. Bruce, Rory Knight (2005-10-29). "Vive la différence! With full government support, hunting is thriving in France". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "I recently attended a weekend in Burgundy hosted by Jean Christophe Iseux, 37, a hunt master and special adviser to the Chinese government, who styles himself "The Red Baron". A fellow guest was Bob Hawke, the former trade unionist and Labour prime minister of Australia. ... said Iseux, referring to the pre-Revolutionary finery of dress that all hunts adopt. An aristocrat by birth, living in a family chateau near Macon, his great-uncle was a radical socialist MP for Burgundy. Oxford-educated Iseux believes that there is nothing incompatible about his love of la chasse and his work as a professor at the People's University of China in Beijing, an MP in the Chinese parliament and consultant to the Chinese government. ... Over the years, Iseux has hunted with an eclectic mixture of European ministers, aristocrats, writers, painters and even the female head of the French prison service."

  5. Han, Baoyi (2019-06-14). "'Sweetener' strategy on trade dispute set to fail". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

     The article notes: "... said Jean Christophe Iseux, a former European diplomat. ... Iseux came to China the first time in 1997 as a visiting professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing. He traveled all around China and did case studies of state-owned enterprise reform and issues relating to agriculture, rural areas, and rural residents in China. These issues became top priorities of China's reform and opening-up policy."

  6. "Explainer: A glimpse of Chinese democracy through lens of 'two sessions'". China Daily. Xinhua News Agency. 2023-03-07. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

     The article notes: "In 2001, a man with a pointy nose and a pair of sunken eyes arrived in northeast China's Changchun City. The man, with the name Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten, turned out to be the first ever non-Chinese member of the CPPCC. He was in Changchun not for travelling, but for attending its city-level CPPCC. "This was an amazing opportunity in 2001 to be invited by the then a mayor of Changchun to be a special invited member of CPPCC. But it was also a very important element of my learning curve on how the democratic system in China did work," said Pfetten, now president of the Institute for East-West Strategic Studies in Britain."

  7. Hamid, Hamisah (2005-07-30). "'China wants Malaysia's main trade partner'". Business Times. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

     The article notes: "Special adviser to central and local governments of China, Jean-Christophe Iseux, said ... Iseux, a Frenchman fluent in English and Mandarin, said many Malaysian investors in China have benefited from their investments. ... Iseux himself is the first and only Caucasian ever as Specially Invited Member of the Chinese Upper House of Parliament and has been ChangChun delegate of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) since December 2002. ... Iseux, who is currently an adviser on Foreign Economic Cooperation to the PCC central committee ..."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Concerns about the article's neutrality can be dealt with through editing as advised at Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems. Conflict of interest editing can be dealt with by following the advice at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to handle conflicts of interest. I don't think deletion is the right approach. Cunard (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep for failure to state a valid deletion rationale. "BLP Issues" does not represent such a rationale.

Nobody has said the article as it stands is inadequately sourced for WP:BASIC. On my review it does cite substantial coverage of this individual (although, as I point out above, there may be some verifiability issues and one of the claims to fame seems to be overstated). Once the additional sources identified by @Cunard are taken into consideration, a notability-based rationale is even harder to maintain.

@KJP1 has made a good argument that there are conduct issues related to the page. However, as they concede, this is not the place for such arguments. Oblivy (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if you see any BLP issues remove them, don't take it to AfD. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As above, no reason for deletion on the typical deletion guidelines has been found.

However, on a separate note, I am curious if anyone has an actual (rather than potentially circular) source for his title being "Baron von Pfetten zu St. Mariakirchen". For instance, in a lot of press he is reported as Jean-Cristophe Iseux (no von Pfetten). I believe this may be his original name?

For instance, the Catholic Herald is very careful about his titling (not so for Lord Bamford), although the description for him seems perhaps self-sourced, here: https://catholicherald.co.uk/uk-catholic-leaders-of-today-2022-business-and-philanthropy/

And, the article on the noble family suggests the von Pfetten zu Mariakirchen line died out: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfetten

EPEAviator (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ‘’’Speedy Keep’’’sufficient reliable external sources from reputable news media (FT, WSJ, Guardian, Spiegel, etc.) to warrant retention of this page. No valid justification for deletion provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterJ111 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC) — PeterJ111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Speedy Keep: per Oblivy, WP:CSK#1. If there are BLP concerns about unsourced content or ambiguity of his title, those should be raised in the talk page instead of filing for deletion. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and I do not find this case to be necessary of WP:TNT. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Charles

Jonathan Charles (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a journalist and added three references. Two are not independent, however, and the other is a passing mention. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST. The article has been marked as possibly not notable since 2020. Tacyarg (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Radio, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Have now added the archive of his BBC profile, but don't think that changes notability status. Tacyarg (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Variable State

Variable State (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 company notability and the awards don't appear sufficiently exceptional. One paragraph about the founding, which could be merged. IgelRM (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United Kingdom. IgelRM (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unsatisfactory basis for deletion.

The company is noteworthy and is currently featured prominently in its industry press, as recently as 7 days ago:

https://www.gameinformer.com/news/2024/06/09/polaris-is-a-co-op-pve-shooter-coming-to-pc-this-year-with-fully-destructible

https://www.gematsu.com/2024/06/sci-fi-co-op-shooter-polaris-announced-for-pc

https://www.pcgamesn.com/polaris/new-sci-fi-pve-shooter

The company has been nominated for numerous prestigious awards, including 3 British Academy Game Awards. It is the recipient of a BAFTA for Music and has won the Writers Guild award for Best Writing in a Video Game.

Furthermore, the company remains active, developing and releasing games, and is considerably more active than other similar game companies whose pages are not nominated for deletion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campo_Santo_(company)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Sparrow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_Machine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simogo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messhof

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Road

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Squid_(company)

My concern is that this nomination for deletion is politically motivated rather than being a genuine suggestion. Deleting this page would be wildly inconsistent with the practice of deleting and updating other video game company pages.

This request for deletion should be cancelled at the earliest opportunity. Badlandssummary (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"My concern is that this nomination for deletion is politically motivated rather than being a genuine suggestion" what a very serious accusation. Do you have any proof to back that up at all or are you just saying that? Procyon117 (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is the only logical explanation for why this particular article has been singled out for deletion when numerous other video game company articles, related to video game studios of equivalent or lesser notoriety, have not been targeted in this way. Either apply a policy consistently or not at all. This deletion decision reflects very poorly on the instigator and those who defend it. It's an arbitrary, unliteral decision, and in the absence of a consistently-applied approach, feels like an attack. If you feel that accusation is serious, then so do I. It is incumbent on the deleter to explain why they are choosing a targeted attack and not a blanket policy. Badlandssummary (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided absolutely zero proof that this is "targeted" in any way, shape or form. We are humans, things are going to slip under the radar, and as others have said, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. Procyon117 (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it helps to know, but e.g. Giant Sparrow and Giant Squid (company) appear to fail notability too and I or someone else might nominate them as well. IgelRM (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Badlandssummary (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you spamming the same thing three times? Procyon117 (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, a mistake on the editor's part. This is my first experience dealing with a deletion request. And given the request seems so targeted and wildly inconsistent with the rules applied to other comparable and lesser-known game studios, I felt a sense of panic and my emotions were running hot. I don't understand why this article has been singled out in this way. If a rule is going to be applied consistently across all video game studios, then I would understand it, but if this particular article is going to be the target of a political action, that seems unjustified and against the spirit of this website. Badlandssummary (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've elected to remove them, as I assume them to be mistaken on the editor's part. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete They seem like a perfectly fine studio and they even arguably have a piece of SIGCOV at GamesIndustry.biz, but notability is not inherited from a studio's games, therefore they fail WP:NCORP at the moment even if their games are in fact notable. Badlandssummary appears to be an WP:SPA, so if they really are a member of the studio or closely associated with it, then I urge them to read the guidelines on WP:COI rather than embarrass themselves by insulting editors and making WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, which will not prevent the article from being removed. Work with people to find notability, and if none can be found it probably doesn't belong. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I should also add that notability is not temporary; once you are notable you remain that way, we are not going and deleting Square (video game company) because they are no longer making games. It's getting there that is the problem, and often people with conflict of interest totally ignore notability when making a page because they are simply there to publicize. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are numerous items of significant coverage. This assessment feels extremely weak, particularly if you directly compare the Variable State article to other equivalent articles, such as those I've cited in my response above. Why would I feel embarrassed? I've not insulted anyone. I've made fair and justified accusations based on the unilateral decision to target a specific article, rather than apply a blanket policy. You are embarrassing yourself by making unsubstituted accusations as to my identity, when you have no basis for doing so other than your own opinion. If my tone is urgent and anxious, it is because I am witnessing an obvious injustice here and am disappointed in the hypocritical and targeted actions of a few editors who are not acting in the spirit of this website and community.

  Regarding articles highlighting the noteworthiness of this studio, I would direct you to the following:

  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gaming/what-to-play/virginia-review--the-x-files-meets-twin-peaks-in-a-remarkable-in/

  https://time.com/4498103/virginia-review-pc-xbox/

  https://www.gameinformer.com/games/virginia/b/playstation4/archive/2016/09/22/game-informer-virginia-review.aspx

  https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-09-22-virginia-review

  https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/289831?

  https://www.pcgamer.com/virginia-wins-the-writers-guild-of-great-britains-prize-for-best-game-writing/

  https://www.gamespot.com/articles/nominees-for-2017-independent-games-festival-award/1100-6446752/

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csmZMNXWZrw

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb_IkGzFY1o

  https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/how-virginias-cinematic-editing-works

  https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/road-to-the-igf-variable-state-s-i-virginia-i- Badlandssummary (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They are all discussing the video game, Virginia. Which already has an article here and is indisputably notable. We're talking about the studio, though, which none of those articles are specifically about.

  Saying a deletion nomination is based on politics with zero proof is not "fair and justified". Seriously, you'll want to stop the ad hominem insults claiming actions are "targeted" against you with no evidence whatsoever or you will definitely be blocked for incivility. Yes, there are plenty of spammy game studio articles on Wikipedia, that does not absolve your article from needing to be notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My criticism of your argument is threefold:

  1) What good is any policy if it is not applied consistently and fairly? The subject of the article clearly passes a higher notoriety threshold than other examples I have given in this discussion, so why should it be singled out? Furthermore, its content is more widely sourced and more thoroughly cited than many of the other examples I have provided. As such, if this article is to be singled out, that implies an injustice, and a policy which is being exploited for partisan reasons. If you were a parking attendant who found a street full of cars with no parking tickets, would it be fair and reasonable for you to cherry pick specific cars to receive penalties? No, that'd be judged as prejudiced and irrational. It is similarly prejudicial to target this article on the basis of an infraction of policy when there are worse offenders elsewhere which are not receiving similar attention. Fairness is the cornerstone of justice.

  2) The accusation of ad hominem against me has no basis. My challenge to the editor who triggered this deletion process was to explain why this article had been singled out, when so many more articles fall far below the standard of content and citation in this article. Therefore, it is only reasonable to ask why the policy being used to support the deletion decision is being applied in a narrow and targeted manner, rather than consistently and fairly applied. It implies an agenda or political motive.

  3) The accusation of "incivility" is spurious in the extreme. If you claim my tone of my replies, which have most certainly not involved foul or threatening language, are of greater concern than the unilateral decision to delete an article which comprises many hours of hard work and which meets the standard met by other equivalent article, then I question your ethics. I recognise no incivility in my conduct, merely a justified distress at both the obliteration of my work, representing hours and days of my life, and the unjust way in which this process is being conducted.

  If this results in my being banned, then I am being excluded from a community which does not value evidence, fairness, or justice, and which wields its authority in a selective and inconsistent manner, in which case I shall perceive it as no slight. I am grateful my remarks here serve as my public testimony. I am not embarrassed by them. They have been made in good faith. Badlandssummary (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Clearly you did not read the linked WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because it explains in detail why your (1) and (2) argument and your entire claim of unfairness is false. Messhof, which you linked, is also probably non-notable. In that case it *should* be deleted, but nobody got around to it yet. However, the fact that yours did not slip past the radar does not mean the nominator was playing favorites. It's possible they did not even realize it was not notable as it was created 7 entire years ago when they may or may not have been there checking new pages. Some straight-up hoaxes have existed for 10+ years simply because nobody found them, it's very easy for stuff to slip past the radar sometimes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (Although I realized that Messhof is judged differently as we have different policies for individual developers as we do companies; WP:NCORP is more stringent than WP:NARTIST, probably due to how common it is for companies to attempt to game the system.) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But these game developer companies are just personal studios of creative professionals here, so there isn't really a difference for notability. The article with be the same if Burroughs and Kenny collectively are notable as creative professionals. IgelRM (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because other bad things exist doesn't mean we get to keep this bad thing. What political motivation are you even implying here? What political ideology or agenda is demonstrated in this article that would be targeted? What "community that doesn't value evidence" are you speaking out against? What the fuck are you even talking about? λ NegativeMP1 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They don't realise that things can pass under the radar, and their arguments certainly aren't helping their case. Procyon117 (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Zx. Also, I feel like there is some WP:COI problem here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I reviewed this articles GAN (which, quite frankly, should have never even happened because of how poorly written it was), I got the feeling that this topic wasn't notable, but that's a topic I personally believe should be kept out of GAN as it's not one of the criteria. This discussion further proves to me that this topic likely isn't notable if the article creator is resulting to personal attacks and accusations instead of actually demonstrating how this topic is worthy for inclusion on Wikipedia. λ NegativeMP1 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but we should still evaluate the studio's notability independently which only Zx has really done so far. The political accusations are undue but I think the the creator is still acting in good faith overall. In any case, some WP:ATD would seem easily applicable given the established game articles. Maybe my nomination was partially because the article doesn't appear in a good state. The GamesIndustry.biz feature is significant (was hard to tell with all the sources about specific game development) and the Develop studio nomination might signify recurring coverage. I hope this in retrospect somewhat bold nomination helps clarify how "game studio biography"-like articles are evaluated. IgelRM (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stated in my message that "I got the feeling that this topic wasn't notable." My stance on this companies notability was separately assessed. I'll agree with you on GamesIndustry.biz being significant, but one source isn't enough. λ NegativeMP1 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per ZX.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining

Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (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)

Unclear sources demonstrate notability. Most contributions to this article are from connected contributors, as noted on talk page. -- Beland (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Engineering. Beland (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep By definition learned societies lead research and thinking in their field, publish the authoritative journals, and have all leading figures in their fellowships. There is rarely going to be a plethora of third party sources as there might be for k-pop stars, Pokémon or footballers. Nevertheless a quick search brought up 1, 2 and 3. Mccapra (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]