Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom

WP:AFD/UK

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:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|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:

Purge page cache

watch

See also:

Scan for United Kingdom related AfDs

United Kingdom[edit]

Montreux Healthcare Fund[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No in-depth significant coverage about the fund itself. Imcdc Contact 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Imcdc Contact 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Health and fitness, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lockley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not seem to pass GNG or even SNG. His work may be notable, he is not. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually should have CSD'd as its been deleted before. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first deletion seems to have happened 6 years ago, back when his Yasuke book was yet to reach the other side of the pond. He and his work have since become much more notable since then, for better or worse. It's better we keep this page for that reason alone. --Jnglmpera (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage and reviews of African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke including in the Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, Library Journal, Booklist, and a large number of other places. Author meets the notability guidelines at WP:Author.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, United Kingdom, and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Thibaut (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De'Anyers family[edit]

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

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. I don't think any reliable sources cited or available elsewhere provide significant coverage of the article subject, instead providing lots of tangential mentions that do not by themselves confer notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Royalty and nobility, and United Kingdom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Ilinski[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Despite looking like a lot of sources, 16 of the 32 sources are simply scientific articles by the subject. Google news comes up with 1 hit. And the company he founded Fusion Asset Management is up for deletion. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Science, Russia, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete no independent notability. 16 footnotes by himself and most of the rest is vrom his company. - Altenmann >talk 16:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "16 footnotes by himself" - can you provide at least few examples? Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article (and possibly edit or amend)

I strongly oppose the deletion of the article on Kirill Ilinski for the following reasons:

1. Significant Academic Contributions:

Kirill Ilinski has authored over 40 scientific articles in the field of quantitative finance, which have been cited by numerous peers, showcasing his influence and recognition within the academic community.
He has written two notable books, one of which was nominated as the best business book by PWC, underscoring the importance and recognition of his work in the business community.

2. Notable Industry Presence:

Ilinski regularly speaks at prominent industry conferences and events, indicating his role as a thought leader in his field. His lectures at St. Petersburg European University are among the most viewed on Lektorium.tv, demonstrating his impact on education and knowledge dissemination.

3. Research on Climate Adaptation:

Ilinski's ongoing research on climate adaptation, which is not yet public, holds potential for significant contributions to how governments can prepare for climate change. His recent co-authored paper, "TOWARDS THE THEORY OF FIRM'S ESG TRANSFORMATION: ESG READINESS," has been listed on SSRN's Top Ten download list, further validating his active and impactful research contributions.

4. Media References and Coverage:

While Google News may show limited hits, a comprehensive search on Google reveals multiple references and articles in reputable sources such as the Financial Times, Hedge Fund Journal, Bloomberg, Hedgeweek etc. (as well as events where he participated as a speaker). These publications highlight his professional achievements and contributions to the finance industry.

5. Independent Sources:

There are number of independent references that establish Ilinski's notability. For example, coverage in renowned financial publications and his academic contributions cited by other researchers demonstrate independent recognition of his work

If certain sections of the article do not comply with Wikipedia's policies, they can be revised or updated to meet the guidelines. Deleting the article would be an extreme measure, especially considering the potential for improvement and the significant content that does meet Wikipedia's standards. Constructive feedback and specific suggestions for improvement would be appreciated, rather than opting for deletion, which would not only undermine the comprehensive representation of his work but also limit the availability of valuable information to the public.

Also, I want to point out that Wikipedia articles for Kirill Ilinski and the company he founded - Fusion Asset Management where on Wikipedia for more then 10 years, and no one ever questioned their compliance with Wikipedia policy.

The fact that both pages were nominated for deletion (instead of suggesting improvements) just within 2 days, make me think that this is a commercially motivated attack. Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose your relation to the company Fusion Asset Management, per Wikipedia rules of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. - Altenmann >talk 16:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buffering (2011 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Sources provided are unconvincing. IMDB is not a WP:RS. The other two are links to basic details of the film. Nothing provided that has covered the film significantly. No reviews, no nothing. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 21:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: review at DVD talk (see page) and review here.Brief review at Filmdienst (German). Review at Cinemagazine (Dutch). So that, significant coverage in independent and reliable sources existing, the page can be retained. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reviews mentioned above such as DVD talk and Cinemagazine.nl, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reviews in DVD Talk, Cinemagazine.nl and Edge Media Network (here) should be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Oswalds Retail Park[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. all sourcing appears to be routine coverage. Mdann52 (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree fails WP:GNG, all references WP:ROTM. Orange sticker (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Nothing remarkable about this shopping centre. Ajf773 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep + add more sources Despite me being the author of the article, I believe the area is notable enough to have an article. Unlike a previous page i made earlier about a school in Kingsholm, It is gaining more notability from sources after the opening of the Popeyes there. Gloucestershire Live has reported alot on it as well. Snipertron12 Talk 07:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About as bog-standard as a shopping centre as you can possibly get, and the opening of a chicken restaurant is just an unnotable tenant switch. Nate • (chatter) 23:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classic World Racing[edit]

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

Together with Crendon Replicas, Blitzworld Buggies, Buckland Cars (and maybe others), articles created by @Mustang208:. None have significant coverage anywhere except for trade/specially articles. I don't think any pass WP:N. I picked this one as a start for the discussion. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I haven't created these articles per se, but have copied them over from German Wikipedia.

I noticed the List of Car Manufacturers of the United Kingdom had a notice asking for more correctly sourced examples, so added to the list by copying over the German pages for smaller British car manufacturers, as I believed (perhaps naively) that since they were already on German wiki, they would be suitable pages.

Overall, since I haven't spent a great deal of time on these, I'm happy to go along with whatever consensus is reached.

Thanks. Mustang208 (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any new sources except for financial statements/company stuff which is given in by the company itself, so not an innuendo of WP:SIGCOV Vorann Gencov (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional British and Irish universities[edit]

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

This subject does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of fictional locations. Another list that is WP:OR in both content and in the synthesis of "fictional X that are also Y and Z." Jontesta (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think this is an obvious delete, and there is no List of fictional universities and colleges to merge to. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland and United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no sources included in the article that cover the topic of fictional British/Irish universities as a group or set - the closest this article has are a series of joke articles from the same website. The only entry here that actually has its own article is the Unseen University, which isn't actually even in Britain or Ireland. Fails WP:LISTN, appears to be peppered throughout with WP:OR, and probably runs afoul of being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rorshacma (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of fictional universities and expand to cover the subject generally. BD2412 T 19:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of fictional universities as suggested above by BD2412T and possibly implied by LaundryPizza03. A quick search shows a number of articles on fictional universities as a group, so that would appear to pass WP:LISTN. The main problem here is that it's a non-encyclopedic WP:CROSSCAT, but as that can be solved by removing the cross-category element that seems to be the obvious solution. Robminchin (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to List of fictional universities — per BD2412 and Robminchin. I believe fictional universities as a group enjoy sufficient coverage; a move makes sense. As it stands, the current article fails WP:LISTN. GhostOfNoMeme 16:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my preference to Move. This should be at List of fictional universities. I don't agree with merging to List of fictional schools — "school" in British English does not refer to universities, so WP:COMMONALITY applies. GhostOfNoMeme 09:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move to List of fictional universities. COI: I created this list, inspired by a conversation at an Academic Archers conference where the University of Felpersham was mentioned and we wondered what other fictional (British) universities existed. I initially drafted it as "List of fictional English universities" but broadened it to UK and Ireland, because that's the area whose literature, film/tv and higher education I'm familiar with. I can see good reasons for broadening the scope to be international, but it will require some careful attention to scope and standards of list items. A column for "Country" will be needed. Entries for many non-UK&I institutions will need to be added, and the borderline of what is a university as opposed to a college will need to be defined, allowing for problems of ENGVAR. In the list at Lists of fictional locations, this list is shown as a subdivision of "List of schools", while in British English "schools" are what comes before Further Education or Higher Education (or in some cases are divisions of a university, or entities such as the London School of Economics!) The existing List of fictional schools includes some universities (and is almost entirely unsourced, except for the schools of magic).

I'm disappointed to see this list described as WP:OR, as every list item and statement is sourced. I would be sorry to see that level of care and sourcing diluted in the move to internationalise the list, but am also fearful that if it is simply moved it will be criticised as failing to represent the whole world, tagged as {{Globalise}}. Perhaps that is OK, as a nudge to editors to join in expanding its coverage. I wouldn't call it WP:INDISCRIMINATE either, as it has very clear inclusion criteria and aims for completeness. At present its title is quite clear about its scope, and it has aimed to be comprehensive within that (ie it includes every sourced fictional UK&Ireland university which has been discovered by me or other contributors, plus a couple of culturally-British extragalactic ones).

There are certainly other sources listing non-UK&I fictional universities: 21 US colleges here, 25 here (largely overlapping), 30 "fictional schools" here (mostly high schools, couple of elementary schools, but a few universities or colleges), a top ten here which includes both UK and US institutions, while this 2015 account of Borchester was to be the first of a week of "Great fictional universities" but I can't find the others. Those sources are all dominated by recent films and tv: the existing list is strong on literature, from Thomas Hardy onwards. Perhaps another column for "medium" (book/play/tv/radio/film) would be useful too.

There may well be lists of fictional universities in American (and other) novels. Some of the titles in Campus novel#Examples may yield list entries (eg I find that Pnin is set in Waindell College), and some of the sources at Campus novel#Bibliography may be fruitful. (Though the first one turns out only to be a book review, of the useful-sounding The American College Novel: an annotated bibliography). Though of course fictional universities are not confined to Campus Novels (Felpersham is from a radio series).

TLDR: To sum up: yes, by all means expand it to international coverage but with care so that it maintains its thorough sourcing and careful construction (eg sortkeys in column 1); a column for "country" and perhaps one for "medium" would be useful additions.

Sorry to be longwinded here, but I do, naturally, feel somewhat protective of this list as its creator and a major contributor. PamD 20:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of fictional schools. No need for two lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of "school" to refer to a tertiary institution is an Americanism, so this violates WP:COMMONALITY. And that's a much poorer article in any case. Non-British Isles universities on that list should be moved to this article after renaming. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Good point regarding WP:COMMONALITY. I agree with a move to List of fictional universities and a transfer of the universities from List of fictional schools. The latter article should make this separation clear. GhostOfNoMeme 11:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of fictional universities and expand. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to List of fictional universities~~ which I am pretty sure is a topic fullfilling WP:LISTN, and expand by other contries, as PamD has pointed to. Daranios (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of fictional universities afterwards, to preserve what we have here as basis for an article with expanded scope which I expect fullfills WP:LISTN just fine. Daranios (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A closer can't close a discussion as a Move. If this is your choice, please make an argument to Keep and then a Move can be discussed after this AFD is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's sort of taken as read! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify If it's going to be expanded, it should happen in the near future. Otherwise, it's too over-specific to remain there, as I don't think that particular subset of fictional universities passes WP:LISTN. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've drafted a possible new version of the main list, ready for international expansion, at User:PamD/new-unis. Two new columns, and no longer any need to explain the Britishness of the three extraterrestrial institutions. Any comments, from editors suggesting keep-and-move? PamD 22:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice I have notified a relevant WikiProject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education#List of fictional British and Irish universities: I believe this is Appropriate notification rather than Canvassing. PamD 22:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Mills (Great Train Robbery)[edit]

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

Fails WP:VICTIM. This seems like a totally un-necessary biography and a WP:CONTENTFORK of the Great Train Robbery. The subject was not individually notable, and his death was a part of the larger train robbery so having a separate article like Death of Jack Mills doesn't seem appropriate. A merge or redirect to Great Train Robbery would be an acceptable WP:ATD. 4meter4 (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support a redirect to Great Train Robbery (1963). Procyon117 (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Times Top 100 Graduate Employers[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. I don't think it is worth a section in The Times article. Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The_Times#Related_publications, agree not notable in its own right but a sentence here would suffice. Orange sticker (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antslive[edit]

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

Not notable musical artist. Still has a long journey to get to notability MaximumRespect! MrFixer200 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and United Kingdom. MaximumRespect! MrFixer200 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems like plenty of coverage: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Geschichte (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Almost TOOSOON. Looks like he just became a musician in the last year or so... These are from a RS per Project Albums [7], [8], just not enough coverage yet to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geschichte, see also [9], [10]. If kept, it should be renamed to AntsLive. Wikishovel (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second the proposal on moving the page title, as the guy's name has the capital L in the middle. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the RS coverage identified above, significant play on BBC national radio per [11]&[12]&[13], and nomination for a notable award per [14]. ResonantDis_tortion 18:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources significant coverage identified in this discussion. He also passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 8 for winning a notable award at the 2023 UK Music Video Awards and being nominated for another at the MOBO Awards, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs improvement, but the rapper is getting coverage from reliable sources as found by the voters above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With such prominent media coverage and award nominations, it's hard to argue against this artist's notability. The article needs improvement, for sure, but it seems unfair to delete the article. Waqar💬 17:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the references provided by Geschichte, The subject has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, including prominent media and national radio. He has also been nominated for and won notable awards, meeting WP:ent criteria. The article needs improvement, but the existing coverage clearly establishes notability. Therefore, the article should be retained. Master rollo (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, without prejudice against a future nomination for deletion if the sources promised to exist are not forthcoming. BD2412 T 01:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British National League (1996–2005)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Ice hockey, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable professional sports league. Many sources are available as per WP:BEFORE, but unfortunately no user has added any. The article needs to be improved, as per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Article needs work, but it meets the notability level required for one. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It's almost certainly notable, but I can't easily find sources due to the fact it's now 20 years old at the most recent. Draftifying would buy us some time. SportingFlyer T·C 15:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Statistics can be easily sourced through various online databases. Information about the league is best found via newspapers. Sorry, I don't have time to do it right away. Flibirigit (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  There's just nothing online I can find to clearly save this one, but I don't have archival access. SportingFlyer T·C 13:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - eminently notable league that was covered extensively in the media. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 04:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The professional sports league in question is notable, meeting the required notability standards. Multiple sources are available to support its notability, though they have not yet been added to the article. According to above dicussion, it is clear that sources exist, and the article should be improved rather than deleted, as per WP. While the article requires significant work, it undeniably meets the necessary notability level. Therefore, it should be retained and improved to reflect its significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Master rollo (talk • contribs) 12:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Even without ignoring the uncivil replies that haven't presented a P&G-based argument, we would still have a clear consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 18:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yossi Elran[edit]

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

One of a number of BLP recently created directly to main space by קוונטום דוץ. Multiple editors have pointed out issues with these such as notability, sourcing, refbombing. This is perhaps the weakest. Lecturer with an h-factor of 8, no major awards, no major mentions, weak independent sourcing and many unsourced paragraphs. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations too low for WP:PROF#C1 and no other PROF criterion apparent. I did find one sort-of-published book review, by notable reviewer Adhemar Bultheel on the now-defunct book review site of the European Mathematical Society [15], but that's not enough by itself for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we will examine your behavior, then each and every of your claims. There have been elapsed 32 minutes since the moment you marked the entry until you put it under discussion for deletion. I assume your were so insulted by my comment in your talk page that you've determined to teach me a lesson. Ok, well. Let us now examine your comments one by one:

1. "Multiple editors have pointed out issues with these such as notability, sourcing, refbombing" - there were only issues in Eli Jerby and you were the one that have decided to crusade the entry. Refbombing? are you serious? to cite academic articles is refbombing?

2. "Lecturer with an h-factors of 8" - Yossi Elran is mainly notable not as a scientist but as an educator. h-index (and not h-factor, I expect you to know that) is irrelevant in this case.

3. "No major awards" - I understand that you have a fantastic aquaintance with all the awards and accolades in education and science journalism.

4. "Weak independent sourcing" - sorry, I don't have plenty of times like you to mend an entry within 32 minutes.

Have a wonderful day. קוונטום דוץ (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pls delete page thanks Lorenzo1235 (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pls keep or delete page thanks Lorenzo1235 (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little sign of WP:NPROF impact via research. Article originator claims NPROF C4 impact, but I do not see much sign of this. Passing mentions only are apparent for GNG. NAUTHOR looks more plausible, but this would require more in the way of reliable source reviews. It is somewhat possible that reviews exist in Hebrew, where the different alphabet makes searching difficult, and I am watching the discussion in case better sources emerge. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some claims why to keep the entry:

1. Membership in the Gathering for Gardner – Membership is granted based on significant contributions in the field of recreational math and a selection committee. It is considered the "supreme body" of the field. Additionally, Elran was the head of a very significant committee there.

2. His book, "Lewis Carroll’s Cats and Rats", has received high recommendations from three very senior and well-known individuals: Ian Stewart, Cliff Pickover, and David Singmaster – all three are authors in the field of creative mathematics and all three have entries here in English Wikipedia. The recommendations are written on websites where the book is sold, such as Amazon and World Scientific, and on the outer cover of the book itself.

3. The book "Paper Puzzle Book" received an excellent review from the MAA – Math Association of America - and also from the European Math Society.

4. Elran's videos on Ted-Ed, which he actually wrote, have collectively accumulated about twenty million views.

5. In Israel, he is certainly well-known. Especially in the context of correspondence mathematics, but he has also written many articles on mathematics that have been published on Ynet, the main news website in Israel. He was interviewed on mathematics at the radio show "Three Who Know" and appeared on several other television programs related to correspondence mathematics. There were also several articles in the local press abroad about Math by Mail and he even appeared in this context on CTV's morning show in Toronto during a visit there in 2007.

6. In his list of scientific publications, he wrote chapters in very significant books – one in Gardner's book and the other in MOVES, which is the second most important conference in the field after Gardner.

7. By the end of the year, the number of his books will increase by two and next year he already have requests for more (and he is also writing two chapters in a Springer's book).

Please consider again. קוונטום דוץ (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 1,2,4,6, these do not contribute significantly to notability. Regarding 3, a second review might tend to make the book notable, and redirection to a stub on the book could be a possible alternative to deletion. Regarding 5, what are the three best sources? (Note that sources do not need to be in English.) Regarding 7, see WP:CRYSTAL. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Regarding 3: here are more reviews - [16], [17].

And here are some sources for 5: [18], [19],[20], [21],[22],[23]...

קוונטום דוץ (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Nick Origami site is some combination of a blog and a storefront for someone selling services, and is not a reliable source. This review counts little towards notability. Articles by the subject count not at all, and I don't think that announcements of events that he is running contribute much. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Russ, you asked to bring resources for point number 5, which refers to articles that he wrote and other things. So how does it not count? Anyhow, regarding what you said toward the end: these are not announcements of events he's running; these are interviews of him in a nationwide radio station. קוונטום דוץ (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles written by Elran count for little or nothing. Articles written _about_ Elran may support notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I hope that the few items of interest will support notability in this certain context.

Here is an article written about Elran and his program in the New Jersey Jewish News: [24]

Here is an article on scienceblogs: [25]

There is also a publication in the Weizmann Institute news: [26]

Here is a press release from FutureLearn, a major MOOC platform, where he has four courses with over 100,000 learners in total. [27]

Also, Elran is on the advisory panel of MathsworldUK alongside very respected and well-known individuals in the field such as Conrad Wolfram and Rob Eastaway. See: [28]. It is an organization that is establishing a mathematics museum and many related activities in the field of mathematics in the UK.

Additionally, the books that are scheduled to be released by the end of the year have already been sent to print, so it is more than just an intention. One is with World Scientific and the other with CRC – Routledge.

Finally, there is an article in Hebrew on Ynet about his activity in establishing the first synagogue named after Yitzhak Rabin [29].

Please consider all that, קוונטום דוץ (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Russ Woodroofe FYI. קוונטום דוץ (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ginny Holder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable actress, Bar Holby City her roles have all been one-bit/minor roles, Cannot find anything in-depth on Google News (all are gossip/mentions), Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG –Davey2010^Talk 18:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to her recurring role in Holby City, she also made recurring appearances in Death in Paradise (TV series) (this is not cited in the article, but see this source, for instance). Thus, because she has had significant roles in these two series, she satisfies the criteria of WP:ENT. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Probably not enough coverage... I find this [30] and a bunch of articles in Hello! about celebrity gossip, but nothing to use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR indeed, with at least 2 significant roles in notable productions, as Gödel2200 explained.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Update: at least 3 (see page).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Update; 6 (PLEASE see 1st Afd, where other productions and sources are mentioned...and that was closed as a clear and fair Keep)....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a tough one because while she does have a fair amount of credits, she herself has no significant third-party coverage despite being in the business for three decades, which is evident by her article having no content since the beginning, literally consisting of two sentences and a filmography. She is merely a byproduct in content focusing on Death in Paradise, and "meet the cast"–type articles do not meet SIGCOV. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 08:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a few things to the page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NACTOR per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree with Casualty's statement, which seems to have mixed up GNG and SNG. The subject person has officially credited main roles in the television series Death in Paradise and The Capture, as well as a recurring role in Holby City which earned her a nomination for Female Performance in TV at the Screen Nation Film and Television Awards. This means the subject person has at least three significant roles in notable projects, which clearly fulfills NACTOR#1 and should be kept. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as she had recurring roles in multiple shows — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterencio (talk • contribs) 22:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement on whether the subject passes or fails NACTOR.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QI News[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2007. Literary found nothing that passes WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Organizations, Internet, and United Kingdom. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find a single source (let alone a reliable one) mentioning this subject, so it definitely fails WP:GNG. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Variety Magazine mentioned it being in development once, in-passing [31]; that isn't substantial coverage. I doubt there is substantial coverage. Unsure about a redirect to QI; ComedyBox is a redlink. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to QI#Other_media -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this one is really strange. NO WP:THREE meeting WP:SIGCOV, still users are not interested. Twinkle1990 (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orsett Heath Academy[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school, which opened in 2020,and cannot see significant coverage in reliable sources which is not run of the mill. I think it is WP:TOOSOON for the school to be notable. Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 7 July 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) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merge to Orsett Heath or Grays, Essex (as its not actually in Orsett Heath). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Try to focus on one Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the academy plays a key role in the local community and its educational system, making it a relevant topic.--RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Trains (open access operator)[edit]

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

Page already exists here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains MrBauer24 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Virgin Trains is about a train operator that ceased in 2019, this is about a separate prospective operator with a different ownership structure. Virgin Trains was a franchised operator, if it comes to fruition, this will be an open access operator.In the same way that we have Flybe (1979-2020) and Flybe (2022–2023), same brand, but otherwise completely different. 00:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenfruy (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As said by Grenfuy, it is a different corporation.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗

00:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗
00:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Merge as it does not appear the future incarnation is yet notable. Can be covered within the extant article until such time as notability changes and it can be spun out. Star Mississippi 01:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Virgin Trains per Star. If they win the bid we can consider a split then Jumpytoo Talk 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grenfruy, or merge to a new overview article about the various uses of the Virgin brand in relation to UK railways. I Oppose merging to an existing article because none of those listed Virgin Trains (disambiguation) are suitable merge targets (based on those articles and the dab page). Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For the same reasons as stated by Grenfuy as it is a different corporation. Rillington (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the new government's stated policy to renationalise the railways, is this proposal even valid any more? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless and until we know a lot more detail about the new plans it's impossible to say whether open access operators will be a feature of a nationalised railway (there are hundreds (at least) of possible structures it could take), but that's only tangentially relevant crystal ball-gazing. This is notable as a proposal (probably individually, definitely as part of a broader article) whether they end up ever running trains or not. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as above, and also worth noting that the new corporation's proposal has plenty of coverage already. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 19:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Clifford[edit]

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

Notability concerns. The article is about a British professor of geography; no secondary sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (no opinion yet). This Nick Clifford appears to be Nicholas J. Clifford, author of research works involving river bed sediment. He should not be confused with Nicholas R. Clifford, a sinologist who appears to be notable (William R. Kenan Professor at Middlebury College). It doesn't help that I keep finding NRC's books listed as being by NJC. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is a weak case to be made for WP:PROF#C1, with a few triple-digit citation counts in Google Scholar. But I can't find any sources that verify even the basic times and dates of his employment, and without that it is difficult to write even an adequate stub that passes WP:V. (To be clear: through affiliations listed on his publications one can place him in certain universities at certain dates, but nothing with a bigger picture of his career.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This archive URL of his profile from Loughborough has Cliffords employment history: [32] - I've also updated the citation in the article to include the archive-url. Furthermore I've identified and added two SCOPUS profiles including [33]. ResonantDis_tortion 21:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Noted academic.... Full Prof at KCL and Loughborough till retirement 2020. Lots of cited works (including Key methods in geography Cited by 1500+) (Perhaps searching GS under NJ Clifford, Nicholas Clifford (and checking is the same Clifford) adds up to substantial pubs... Technical clear Pass of WP:prof (8) by virtue of being (formerly) the editor of Progress in Physical Geography. Added refs, including editorials in the journal, substantiating this (Msrasnw (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- Is the River Science Wikidot source reliable? I had assumed not, but on further review it does seem to be a closed-wiki with some editorial control. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The author of the article is another UK academic in the same field. BhamBoi (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with the !vote by Msrasnw, in particular 4 figure citations. Furthermore a quick google identified secondary book reviews [34], and [35]. Also the worldcat profile here shows his books are held by hundreds of libraries, which should count for something. ResonantDis_tortion 22:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prof: was a full Professor at a major university, and has lots of citations. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject of this article appears to meet the guidelines (WP:ACADEMIC). He has a considerable publication record and his work, especially Key Methods in Geography, has been cited over 1,500 times. His role as the editor of Progress in Physical Geography adds even more weight to his notability. His teaching roles at King's College London and Loughborough University also prove that he is notable. Other references and articles support the claims in the entry, further enhancing his standing.--AstridMitch (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep can be considered notable according to WP:PROF#C5 (Readership at Nottingam) and WP:PROF#C4 (key methods in human geography by Clifford is an introductory level textbook used in British universities) Vorann Gencov (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live Art Development Agency[edit]

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

Sources not passing WP:ORGIND and I believe it fails WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As well the 2011 piece by Lyn Gardner of The Guardian which is referenced in the article, searches also find a 2019 piece by the same author. It is partly an interview with the co-founder of LADA, but starts with the writer's overview of the Live Art field and evaluation of LADA's role in it. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following doesn't contribute to notability here, but I will also note that the present article doesn't mention organisational controversy during 2023 (news item discussing the closure threat and petition). AllyD (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick google scholar search https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22live+art+development+agency%22&btnG= indicates multiple quality sources referencing the organisation and its significance in global and UK live art, including books https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wyJHEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA12&dq=%22live+art+development+agency%22&ots=M7sejwMOu5&sig=66lY7cxWvj0E_0jIdmuCmVU5DN8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22live%20art%20development%20agency%22&f=false and peer review articles dating back to the early 2000s DrawingDays (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote against deletion. While the article has issues, they aren't based on notability. It is clearly a well-cited and long running organisation that is important the UK cultural scene. The article could more clearly lay out the history and challenges of the org, as mentioned above, but this doesn't warrant deletion. genericxz (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator has invoked WP:NCORP, however from this link [36] we see that the subject is a charity, therefore WP:NONPROFIT applies. It is not necessary for the subject to meet the more stringent guidelines put in place for corporate entities. On this basis - in particular including from the arguments above - there does appear sufficient coverage and citations of the activities of this charity to have a reasonable presumption of notability. ResonantDis_tortion 22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The vast majority of sources in the article are primary or affiliated, or they are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that discuss LADA in passing. However, we have a bare minimum pass of WP:NORG with Chatzichristodoulou et al., Martin and Keidan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

England[edit]

Jack Colman (author)[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources found. Author thus fails WP:NBIO. GTrang (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and England. GTrang (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montreux Healthcare Fund[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No in-depth significant coverage about the fund itself. Imcdc Contact 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Imcdc Contact 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Health and fitness, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lockley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not seem to pass GNG or even SNG. His work may be notable, he is not. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually should have CSD'd as its been deleted before. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first deletion seems to have happened 6 years ago, back when his Yasuke book was yet to reach the other side of the pond. He and his work have since become much more notable since then, for better or worse. It's better we keep this page for that reason alone. --Jnglmpera (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage and reviews of African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke including in the Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, Library Journal, Booklist, and a large number of other places. Author meets the notability guidelines at WP:Author.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, United Kingdom, and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Thibaut (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iain McKee[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG - a WP:BEFORE search turned up no focused coverage, just passing mentions in coverage about projects he was associated with in some way. Also does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR as his roles are mostly non-significant. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nirad Solanki[edit]

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

There is a lot of refbombing in this orphan article. Whilst a lot of the coverage confirms he bought businesses and bars, none of this is indepth to meet WP:SIGCOV. Just a run of the mill businessman that doesn't meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, and England. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Charles Firebrace, 2nd Baronet[edit]

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

Baronets are not normally notable and there doesn’t seem to be anything that would amount to a claim of notability with this subject. Mccapra (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Mccapra (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First Baronets are certainly notable, but not necessarily their successors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Oswalds Retail Park[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. all sourcing appears to be routine coverage. Mdann52 (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree fails WP:GNG, all references WP:ROTM. Orange sticker (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Nothing remarkable about this shopping centre. Ajf773 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep + add more sources Despite me being the author of the article, I believe the area is notable enough to have an article. Unlike a previous page i made earlier about a school in Kingsholm, It is gaining more notability from sources after the opening of the Popeyes there. Gloucestershire Live has reported alot on it as well. Snipertron12 Talk 07:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About as bog-standard as a shopping centre as you can possibly get, and the opening of a chicken restaurant is just an unnotable tenant switch. Nate • (chatter) 23:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion Asset Management[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The sources used are either written by the firm's founder or are interviews with him that rule out independence. I so far cannot see any proper independence sources that provide significant coverage on the firm itself. Imcdc Contact 03:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Imcdc Contact 03:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. 3 gnews hits says it all, lacking third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just use Google seach instead of Google News. Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. - Altenmann >talk 04:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NCORP and Reliable sources. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hedgefund journal, UCITS hedge Funds, Eurohedge and Hedgeweek are not reliable sources? Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NCORP. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can you specify exactly how and where it fails NCORP please? Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This company's founder is also up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirill Ilinski. LibStar (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Here are examples of independent sources

https://www.ipe.com/investment/asset-management-fees-whats-the-going-rate/10012128.article

https://www.ft.com/content/e6aff8b0-5480-11df-8bef-00144feab49a

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trends-in-economics-a-calculus-of-risk/ Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose the deletion of the article on Fusion Asset Management for the following reasons:

Fusion Asset Management is a well-regarded company within the financial sector, with 20+ years track record particularly known for its innovative approaches to asset management and risk mitigation. The company's methodologies and strategies have been widely discussed and adopted within the industry.

Contrary to the claim of insufficient independent sources, Fusion Asset Management has been featured in several reputable financial publications. These include coverage in the Financial Times, Bloomberg, Hedge Fund Journal, and Hedgeweek. These sources provide independent verification of the company's activities, achievements, and contributions to the finance industry.

In addition to these, Fusion Asset Management’s methodologies and research have been cited in academic papers and industry reports, further establishing its impact and recognition beyond self-published content.

If there are particular sections of the article that do not comply with Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards, they can be revised. Specific feedback on which sections need improvement would be greatly appreciated, allowing for targeted revisions rather than a blanket deletion.

Deleting the article would overlook the company’s impact and the opportunity to provide comprehensive and accurate information to the public. I urge for a reconsideration of the deletion proposal, focusing on improving the article rather than removing it.

Also, I want to point out that Wikipedia articles for Kirill Ilinski and the company he founded - Fusion Asset Management where on Wikipedia for more then 10 years, and no one ever questioned their compliance with Wikipedia policy.

The fact that both pages were nominated for deletion (instead of suggesting improvements) just within 2 days, make me think that this can be commercially motivated. Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or update)

I oppose the deletion of the article on Fusion Asset Management for the following reasons:

Fusion Asset Management is a well-regarded company within the financial sector, with 20+ years track record particularly known for its innovative approaches to asset management and risk mitigation. The company's methodologies and strategies have been widely discussed and adopted within the industry.

Contrary to the claim of insufficient independent sources, Fusion Asset Management has been featured in several reputable financial publications. These include coverage in the Financial Times, Bloomberg, Hedge Fund Journal, and Hedgeweek. These sources provide independent verification of the company's activities, achievements, and contributions to the finance industry.

In addition to these, Fusion Asset Management’s methodologies and research have been cited in academic papers and industry reports, further establishing its impact and recognition beyond self-published content.

If there are particular sections of the article that do not comply with Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards, they can be revised. Specific feedback on which sections need improvement would be greatly appreciated, allowing for targeted revisions rather than a blanket deletion.

Deleting the article would overlook the company’s impact and the opportunity to provide comprehensive and accurate information to the public. I urge for a reconsideration of the deletion proposal, focusing on improving the article rather than removing it.

Also, I want to point out that Wikipedia articles for Kirill Ilinski and the company he founded - Fusion Asset Management where on Wikipedia for more then 10 years, and no one ever questioned their compliance with Wikipedia policy.

The fact that both pages were nominated for deletion (instead of suggesting improvements) just within 2 days, make me think that this can be commercially motivated.

Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose your relation to the company Fusion Asset Management, per Wikipedia rules of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. - Altenmann >talk 16:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Mills (Great Train Robbery)[edit]

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

Fails WP:VICTIM. This seems like a totally un-necessary biography and a WP:CONTENTFORK of the Great Train Robbery. The subject was not individually notable, and his death was a part of the larger train robbery so having a separate article like Death of Jack Mills doesn't seem appropriate. A merge or redirect to Great Train Robbery would be an acceptable WP:ATD. 4meter4 (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support a redirect to Great Train Robbery (1963). Procyon117 (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akin Gazi[edit]

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

Non notable actor. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Cowlibob (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~: Hi, @Cowlibob: I suppose that WP:NACTOR is more likely to apply. Regarding its criteria: 'Such a person may be considered notable if:~~

1) The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or

2) The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.'

I think 1) is more likely to apply. I can see from his page that he has appeared in almost two dozen films and television shows which are sufficiently notable to have their own article. Do you accept that they are notable? If so, is your case simply that his roles are not significant? How do you believe that a significant role is defined for the purposes of notability in WP:NACTOR? Is there a guideline or 'case law' supporting this? Thanks. Jontel (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KEEP Gazi's article seemingly meets the criteria of WP:NACTOR i.e. 'Such a person may be considered notable if the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows...' in that he has appeared in multiple (around two dozen) productions which have their own articles (and so are presumably notable) and his generally mid ranking in credited roles are presumably sufficiently significant. The case for keeping the article is strengthened by a career duration at this level of almost two decades WP:SUSTAINED. However, without searching through the reviews of his productions, there appears to be little independent reliable secondary coverage of him, which would be required to pass WP:BASIC. The key guiding text appears to be: 'People are likely to be notable if they meet (WP:NACTOR)...(However)...meeting (WP:NACTOR) does not guarantee that a subject should be included.' i.e. WP:NACTOR alone is not sufficient for notability. Given his roles in so many notable productions, is there a case for giving editors time to find the coverage necessary to meet WP:BASIC, as suggested in WP:ATD, by leaving it for a period? Jontel (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Robbie[edit]

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

Does not contain any reliable, verifiable references and no other sources can be found through a web search, adherence to WP:ENTERTAINER is dubious; limited evidence of significant coverage in multiple notable productions. Redtree21 (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and England. Redtree21 (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of images of her, not much sigcov in RS Traumnovelle (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough coverage for WP:GNG. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Benjamin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jonny Benjamin

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

I am the article subject, and I regard myself as a non-notable, private person now, and I want the article to be deleted please Jonnybenjamin (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Both Jonnybenjamin and Jlf2025 have held themselves out as the article's subject. —C.Fred (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i created a new account as per the advice of Geoffrey Lane-i was following the instructions step by step from his reply to Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team Re: [Ticket#2024071110029918] Request to delete page about me Jonnybenjamin (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have corrected the link; it previously linked to a non-existent article. Please confirm this is the correct link. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. I have removed some of the more unnecessary personal details. The Stranger on the Bridge might be a redirect target, or another candidate for deletion. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Stranger on the Bridge: per WP:1E. C F A 💬 20:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also support protection per below. C F A 💬 03:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect so it can’t be undone. We don’t need this amount of sensitive personal information about a living person. Mccapra (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Health and fitness, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetham Tenants' and Residents' Alliance[edit]

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

Non notable local residents association. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Lack of coverage due to being relatively new. LibStar (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find any independent coverage, subject seems to fail WP:ORGCRIT. Besides, the article itself seems to be promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorann Gencov (talk • contribs) 19:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Vaughan[edit]

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

So what exactly makes this guy notable? Being the son of Michael Vaughan, is all I can tell. He hasn't played cricket at a senior level and hasn't done anything of note in cricket to warrant inclusion. No amount of WP:ROUTINE refbombs can hide that he is a WP:GNG fail. AA (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AA (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, fails WP:GNG. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don’t understand whether he has already played for Somerset and the England U19 to pass WP:NCRIC, but signing a contract with the club and being called up to the U19 team is being covered in the media, which indicates the passage WP:SIGCOV. I will list several secondary sources, you can easily find more [37][38][39] Tau Corvi (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But why is that notable? Plenty of people get signed by major sports teams and never go onto do anything. Is the bar really set this low? Again, if his father wasn't a famous cricketer, he would not get any coverage. AA (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article was moved to mainspace via Afc. Subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Hildreth gazzard (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orsett Heath Academy[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school, which opened in 2020,and cannot see significant coverage in reliable sources which is not run of the mill. I think it is WP:TOOSOON for the school to be notable. Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 7 July 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) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merge to Orsett Heath or Grays, Essex (as its not actually in Orsett Heath). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Try to focus on one Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the academy plays a key role in the local community and its educational system, making it a relevant topic.--RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Clifford[edit]

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

Notability concerns. The article is about a British professor of geography; no secondary sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (no opinion yet). This Nick Clifford appears to be Nicholas J. Clifford, author of research works involving river bed sediment. He should not be confused with Nicholas R. Clifford, a sinologist who appears to be notable (William R. Kenan Professor at Middlebury College). It doesn't help that I keep finding NRC's books listed as being by NJC. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is a weak case to be made for WP:PROF#C1, with a few triple-digit citation counts in Google Scholar. But I can't find any sources that verify even the basic times and dates of his employment, and without that it is difficult to write even an adequate stub that passes WP:V. (To be clear: through affiliations listed on his publications one can place him in certain universities at certain dates, but nothing with a bigger picture of his career.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This archive URL of his profile from Loughborough has Cliffords employment history: [40] - I've also updated the citation in the article to include the archive-url. Furthermore I've identified and added two SCOPUS profiles including [41]. ResonantDis_tortion 21:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Noted academic.... Full Prof at KCL and Loughborough till retirement 2020. Lots of cited works (including Key methods in geography Cited by 1500+) (Perhaps searching GS under NJ Clifford, Nicholas Clifford (and checking is the same Clifford) adds up to substantial pubs... Technical clear Pass of WP:prof (8) by virtue of being (formerly) the editor of Progress in Physical Geography. Added refs, including editorials in the journal, substantiating this (Msrasnw (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- Is the River Science Wikidot source reliable? I had assumed not, but on further review it does seem to be a closed-wiki with some editorial control. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The author of the article is another UK academic in the same field. BhamBoi (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with the !vote by Msrasnw, in particular 4 figure citations. Furthermore a quick google identified secondary book reviews [42], and [43]. Also the worldcat profile here shows his books are held by hundreds of libraries, which should count for something. ResonantDis_tortion 22:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prof: was a full Professor at a major university, and has lots of citations. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject of this article appears to meet the guidelines (WP:ACADEMIC). He has a considerable publication record and his work, especially Key Methods in Geography, has been cited over 1,500 times. His role as the editor of Progress in Physical Geography adds even more weight to his notability. His teaching roles at King's College London and Loughborough University also prove that he is notable. Other references and articles support the claims in the entry, further enhancing his standing.--AstridMitch (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep can be considered notable according to WP:PROF#C5 (Readership at Nottingam) and WP:PROF#C4 (key methods in human geography by Clifford is an introductory level textbook used in British universities) Vorann Gencov (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live Art Development Agency[edit]

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

Sources not passing WP:ORGIND and I believe it fails WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As well the 2011 piece by Lyn Gardner of The Guardian which is referenced in the article, searches also find a 2019 piece by the same author. It is partly an interview with the co-founder of LADA, but starts with the writer's overview of the Live Art field and evaluation of LADA's role in it. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following doesn't contribute to notability here, but I will also note that the present article doesn't mention organisational controversy during 2023 (news item discussing the closure threat and petition). AllyD (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick google scholar search https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22live+art+development+agency%22&btnG= indicates multiple quality sources referencing the organisation and its significance in global and UK live art, including books https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wyJHEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA12&dq=%22live+art+development+agency%22&ots=M7sejwMOu5&sig=66lY7cxWvj0E_0jIdmuCmVU5DN8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22live%20art%20development%20agency%22&f=false and peer review articles dating back to the early 2000s DrawingDays (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote against deletion. While the article has issues, they aren't based on notability. It is clearly a well-cited and long running organisation that is important the UK cultural scene. The article could more clearly lay out the history and challenges of the org, as mentioned above, but this doesn't warrant deletion. genericxz (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator has invoked WP:NCORP, however from this link [44] we see that the subject is a charity, therefore WP:NONPROFIT applies. It is not necessary for the subject to meet the more stringent guidelines put in place for corporate entities. On this basis - in particular including from the arguments above - there does appear sufficient coverage and citations of the activities of this charity to have a reasonable presumption of notability. ResonantDis_tortion 22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The vast majority of sources in the article are primary or affiliated, or they are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that discuss LADA in passing. However, we have a bare minimum pass of WP:NORG with Chatzichristodoulou et al., Martin and Keidan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Phillips (English cricketer, born 2003)[edit]

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

Subject person played only 1 List-A and 2 First class match. Does WP:GNG surpasses WP:NCRICK? Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Twinkle1990: - can I just point out NSPORT states that "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline...) - so all NSPORT is saying that people who meet those criteria are considered notable, but not meeting those criteria doesn't automatically make them non-notable. Mdann52 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG. Mdann52 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear on the cricket delsort - tryingto add that again first Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At worst this is an obvious redirect to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players where his name needs to be added. A note should also be added, as has been done for others. Beyond that I have no particular view here - there are some sources, but not so many. I suspect he is likely to be covered in others as well fwiw Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players. He does not meet GNG - this is the one qualifying source. Gloscricket is obviously not independent coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the delsort issues, more eyes won't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but he may be notable in the future, i.e. WP:NOTNOW. SWinxy (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SWinxy, in this case, wouldn't a redirect be more appropriate? That way, if he becomes notable in the future, someone won't have to start the article from scratch. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, borderline decision but given the rhythms and vagaries of the English county cricket season we are approaching the part where younger players are used to a greater extent, precisely the time this page will be useful to people who follow the game to refer to. Hildreth Gazzard (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players. References are currently insufficient for GNG. Frank Anchor 18:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Passes WP:NCRIC as a cricketer who has played at the highest domestic level. I would add [45] and maybe [46] to the references. Tau Corvi (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Northern Ireland[edit]

Others[edit]

Scotland[edit]

Girl Geeks Scotland[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:ORG. 3 of the 4 sources are dead. The remaining source [47] is a small mention. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Organizations, Computing, and Scotland. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent sources available. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found and added archived versions of the broken links. There are four good references, including two from mainstream newspapers. The article should be moved to Girl Geek Scotland, the organization's correct name.
Keep — clearly, the article needs a rewrite and the inclusion of additional references. However, as per WP:CONTN and WP:NPOSSIBLE, the current state of the article has no bearing on its notability. Reliable and independent sources do exist: I am able to find a decent number of them. I see coverage in The Scotsman, Holyrood, BBC, City A.M., The Independent, and others. I think there is enough to establish notability. GhostOfNoMeme 15:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep found this on The Guardian[48], combined with the sources the wikipedians afore spoke about, should be enough to pass WP:SIGCOV and, subsequently, WP:ORGCRIT. However, when saying “I found an article on BBC”, please, add a link as well. That would help discussion to move quicker, as it would be easier to verify the arguments. Vorann Gencov (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above Guardian RS article source stating this is a nonprofit organisation, then basic GNG applies per WP:NONPROFIT, and the subject very much appears to meet that notability level. ResonantDis_tortion 22:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

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

Wales[edit]

Others[edit]

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

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

United Kingdom[edit]

Montreux Healthcare Fund[edit]

Thomas Lockley[edit]

De'Anyers family[edit]

Kirill Ilinski[edit]

Buffering (2011 film)[edit]

St Oswalds Retail Park[edit]

Classic World Racing[edit]

List of fictional British and Irish universities[edit]

Jack Mills (Great Train Robbery)[edit]

Times Top 100 Graduate Employers[edit]

Antslive[edit]

British National League (1996–2005)[edit]

Yossi Elran[edit]

Ginny Holder[edit]

QI News[edit]

Orsett Heath Academy[edit]

Virgin Trains (open access operator)[edit]

Nick Clifford[edit]

Live Art Development Agency[edit]

Others[edit]

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

England[edit]

Jack Colman (author)[edit]

Montreux Healthcare Fund[edit]

Thomas Lockley[edit]

Iain McKee[edit]

Nirad Solanki[edit]

Sir Charles Firebrace, 2nd Baronet[edit]

St Oswalds Retail Park[edit]

Fusion Asset Management[edit]

Jack Mills (Great Train Robbery)[edit]

Akin Gazi[edit]

Sue Robbie[edit]

Jonny Benjamin[edit]

Cheetham Tenants' and Residents' Alliance[edit]

Archie Vaughan[edit]

Orsett Heath Academy[edit]

Nick Clifford[edit]

Live Art Development Agency[edit]

Joe Phillips (English cricketer, born 2003)[edit]

Others[edit]

Northern Ireland[edit]

Others[edit]

Scotland[edit]

Girl Geeks Scotland[edit]

Others[edit]

Wales[edit]

Others[edit]