Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

WP:DELSORT/ENGLAND

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to England. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|England|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:English Wikipedians' notice board

Scan for England related AfDs

Scan for England related Prods
Scan for England related TfDs

England

Stirling Square Capital Partners

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

A normal business that is doing normal business things with no real sources in 8 years. All sources currently in the article are primary. A quick before search shows nothing besides ORGTRIV mentions like M&A. Putting this article up for AfD because of the current WP:Articles for deletion/Gregorio Napoleone (2nd nomination) Moritoriko (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and United Kingdom. Moritoriko (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fin Roberts

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

Declined PROD. Article with several basic information missing, based on two database sources. I couldn't find anything about him after a WP:BEFORE. Svartner (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, and England. Svartner (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft? Little bits on the web, Did you see those in your WP:BEFORE? BBC Line-up, BBC gets a mention. Mostly primary sources and databases online atm. Govvy (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Bargains

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

Does not seem notable Update6 (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Bull

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

Fails WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV. All the sources currently on the page that aren't to, like, youtube videos are very short and barely talk about him. From google there's a Forbes WP:INTERVIEW but that's all I found. I like the guy's music but he doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for an article TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am familiar with DB from Epic Rap Battles of History. From an inspection of the references, there appear to be many from YouTube and X, which are not reliable and violate WP:RS/PS. I am uncertain how to vote for now, so I will wait for others to give their opinions before settling on a vote. 11WB (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holborn Adams

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

Does not meet GNG and sounds a bit promotional. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Uncle Bash007 Thank you for your other message and feedback. I created the page because a link existed on another page that was red and didn't go to a page that existed. Wikipedia therefore suggested page creation and I have seen other similar pages so assumed this was fine so long as there are notable references available. The references are all news articles. I have made some changes in line with your feedback to make sure the copy is purely informational. It is not intended to be promotional but factual and I hope this improves it. There were also links on other Wikipedia pages to this page that should now work rather than link to a page that does not exist. Are these improvements suitable? Greenfieldsgreentrees (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Morris

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

Parent company of only one main subsidiary, not notable Update6 (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Home Bargains Home Bargains is their trade name and it's even mentioned in the lede, making this article superfluous. Nathannah • 📮 01:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Home Bargains: that article is written in such a way that makes it clear that TJ Morris is just the corporate name behind the Home Bargains chain. It's pretty telling that, as currently written, the separate TJ Morris article claims that the company owns several businesses, but the only other one besides Home Bargains to be mentioned in the article, Quality Save, had all their locations rebranded to Home Bargains over the course of a year after being acquired. There's no separate notability (or topic) here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Lunt

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a G4, but neither have the issues raised at either of the prior AfDs been addressed. I've also done some paperwork, but am not positive of the results. Star Mississippi 02:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Star Mississippi 02:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In one season he went on loan, came back and then went on to make a total of 19 professional appearance for Crewe. With the fact he signed a new contract, I'm under the impression he is becoming more notable. Regardless of the WP:PRIMARY sources present, there are a few secondary and if he has a good coming season then that helps even more. It's a weak keep for me, but I feel it's a fair assessment on his notability and where his career is. Govvy (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources there are secondary? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC ones obviously! :/ Govvy (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Okay, I see two BBC sources:
Rotherham United 2 - 1 Crewe Alexandra - Clearly a match report which is equally clearly a primary source.

Crewe midfielder Lunt signs new one-year contract - 81 words specifically about the page subject before moving onto other things. We learn he is Kenny Lunt's nephew, and he signed a contract. It's not SIGCOV in my view, but even if it is, this is still reporting the signing of a contract. That is still a primary source as there is no synthesis of sources here. It will have come off the back of a club announcement, and is not independent of that.

So, sorry, I don't agree we have secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BBC are a secondary sources and are not classed as primary sources. Primary is close too, BBC are not close to the club or the player. However what you say is correct in view of individual sources. Again, you fail to understand the rules of GNG, when one source isn't enough you can combine multiple sources. Also again, I said my vote is a weak keep as he is an active player where as more sources can be added as he progresses through his career. Govvy (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
??? 1. Of course BBC can be a primary source, such as for match reports or other breaking news. 2. Primariness has nothing whatsoever to do with "closeness to the club", you seem to be confusing that with independence. 3. GNG says nothing about combining non-SIGCOV sources, that's something only found in BASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A BBC match report is not a primary source. However, more importantly, it is also not SIGCOV. Giant Snowman 20:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's moot, but... if someone watches a match and writes a report of the match, how is that not a primary eyewitness account of the match? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with Govvy's input already here, I'm not going to G5 it, but dropping Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EnglishDude98 if helpful to others. Star Mississippi 12:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per discussion above, I don't see any secondary sources in this article. Match reporting is all primary, as are result tables. Interviews are not independent and primary per WP:IV. News reporting is primary without any secondary synthesis per WP:PRIMARY (note d) and see WP:PRIMARYNEWS. We need multiple independent reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. We don't have any. And WP:SPORTCRIT imposes an absolute minimum requirement that we must have one. Created by a block evading user, there is no reason to keep this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Number of professional appearances in 2025 should merit coverage if notable - and note that this was likely created by a sock. Giant Snowman 18:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed as being created by a sock and therefore eligible for speedy deletion. Giant Snowman 20:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question GiantSnowman Not doing a WP:BEFORE today? How much do you want on the snip bits? [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Plus the stuff on the article already. Btw, there are interviews by the clubs, but those are primary, I could add about another 50 citations for him on match reports and comments about him. It goes on really, I honestly don't understand why people are so adamant about deleting a footballer who has multiple independent sources of a paragraph here and there, a sentence here and there. It's as if no one gives a shit about WP:BASIC anymore. That's what, 10 minutes, 15 minutes of looking! I wonder what someone will find with a few hours to burn. Anyway I am going to go make some dinner now! Govvy (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did a Google search - nothing you have linked to is anywhere near SIGCOV. Giant Snowman 20:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the identified sources provide the required IRS SIGCOV. Primary match reports, routine transactional announcements, interviews etc. do not count. JoelleJay (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Richold Collection

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

{{{text}}} Rhinocrat (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC) This page doesn't seem to meet WP:N, relies on a single source, a booklet. Other refs seem to be news sources. All refs don't have page numbers and are all unlinked except two, one a biography second some kind of video. Checked sections, and they don't seem to be correctly written (someone more experienced can double check)[reply]

Keep. I've added Newspapers.com clippings to the article for all of the sources that were available. Someone with access to the British Newspaper Archive should be able to verify the rest of the newspaper sources. There is plenty more about the collection on Newspapers.com as well, e.g. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] plus about 100 more search hits. MCE89 (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's still overreliant on one source, so best case it gets stubified Rhinocrat (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure I really understand your concern. Is there something wrong with that source that makes you think it needs to be removed? Relying largely on one comprehensive source and then filling in details with news coverage is quite common and is generally fine. The booklet is not the perfect source, but it seems fine to me as a source for basic details. MCE89 (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be stubified anyway because while the collection itself may be notable, the booklet could be biased anyway, and I don't think it is significant independent coverage. Some of the history could be moved to a biography, and the rest should be truncuated to a summary (needing individual detail for each section seems a bit excessive detail e.g. "Made to a scale of 1:50. The model contained over 4,000 pieces and took over four years to make. It is made of sycamore with window bows of cotton wood." from the article is so much unneccessary detail. (Or maybe merge it into Richard Old since it's a stub) Rhinocrat (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually maybe merge it into Richard Old my stance is now merge into Richard Old Rhinocrat (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable per the sources presented by MCE89. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ladywood House

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

Could not find any in-depth coverage per WP:NBUILD. Aŭstriano (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, United Kingdom, and England. Aŭstriano (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no explanation, other than it was once the tallest building in a small city, and user:Bearian/Standards#Estates, developments, and housing projects. If you can show a reliable source that a thousands of people live there, ping me. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ToTheBones

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

Utter lack of WP:SIGCOV. Potentially UPE. jellyfish ✉ 00:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. jellyfish ✉ 00:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated above, lack of significant, reliable coverage. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 04:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group looks likely to meet WP:MUSIC with coverage from, e.g., The Guardian ([14]), NME ([15]), The Line of Best Fit ([16]), and Drowned in Sound ([17]). I doubt this exhausts their 2008-era coverage (going to paper probably necessary for much more). Chubbles (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. No awards, charting, certified gold. The band hasn't posted on Myspace or Facebook in the last 7 years. Their website is down. I only found a couple of Youtube videos from 11 and 13 years ago. I also found a few more sources but from many years ago. Most likely they have disbanded. Either way notability is not met. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Aside from the SIGCOV identified by Chubbles, I found: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. We indeed don't know whether they didbanded or not, but there are enough coverage of their work to keep the article. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 03:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also found some of those sources. The 3 articles in the town newspaper (The Bolton News) and the NME blog doesn't seem important enough to me. The BBC News articles are also local. About Chubbles' sources, two are online music magazines which are difficult to asses as reliable. The Guardian and the NME article are the only sources I would consider useful, and perhaps the BBC ones.— Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of reliable sources coverage such as The Guardian, BBC, NME. Also coverage in Drowned in Sound and The Line of Best Fit which have already been assessed as reliable as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Gow (sporting director)

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

I really don't know how this passes WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. I see nothing exceptional or notable about this person. Govvy (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:COOKIE, just a football director who did his job like everyone else, without anything that deserves encyclopedic content. Svartner (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

8 Watford–Mount Vernon Hospital

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

Another one of those non-notable bus routes. Sources primarily are from one local newspaper which are primarily talks about only about cuts and changes rather than there being substantial history. Coverage is very WP:ROUTINE and this article is likely to forever stay as a stub as there isn't enough information outside of cuts and changes to allow for expansion so this is also not notable under WP:BUSROUTE either. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appleby Court

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

Notability not demonstrated. Google search returns only estate agent listings of apartments in the building. The two sources only describe it in passing (where the first link can be found on The Internet Archive}. Tæppa (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is on the London Borough of Ealing's heritage list who give it a detailed description. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tæppa (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Philafrenzy. Althogh it's actually Enfield, not Ealing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus Christi Catholic Church, Wokingham

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

Not seeing any independent WP:SIGCOV leading to a WP:GNG pass for this local Catholic parish church. Sources in the article include non-independent sites (parish webpage, parish newsletter, schooll webpage, the diocesan website [25], [26]), the WP:UGC GenUKI (see [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_298#Royalcruft_again]); WP:PRIMARYSOURCE directory pages ([27], [28]); and a WP:TRIVIALMENTION ([29]. A WP:BEFORE search turns up many more directory listings and trivial mentions (example) but nothing we can work with for notability. Open to a redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth but bringing it to AfD for that consensus since a draftification was contested with the addition of non-qualifying sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a run-of-the-mill parish. I wouldn't redirect to the diocese as there is no list of parishes. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep Many of the other churches in the diocese have a Wikipedia page, so I believe that it's only fair that this one does. There might not be too many references because it isn't a huge parish, but many other churches' Wikipedia pages have even worse referencing, it it is difficult to find relevant sources. But I believe that the sources are not biased and it does not compromise the quality of the article. Eterin (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- it's not a valid argument to retain a page. If it's difficult to find sourcing for this topic then we should not keep it as a standalone mainspace page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Welch

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NMODEL and lacks SIGCOV in independent sources. Currently, the article has one BBC interview that doesn't contribute to notability, and my WP:BEFORE didn't show anything. The 2011 AFD discussion identified several sources, but most of them are considered unreliable by Wiki (+this Daily Star article I found). This source a little bit pushes the article towards notability. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 15:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Entertainment. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 15:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That BBC interview is about all I can find. We don't have enough sourcing for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy call. Not close to notable. One interview certainly does not qualify as notability. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TKatKa

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

Not seeing how this group meets WP:BAND notability guidelines. LInks provided are just WP:ROUTINE or passing mentions. ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sweden, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, they exist, and have been played at least once on BBC Radio 1 per [30]. Apart from that, per the nom, I am unable to find any evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. ResonantDis_tortion 07:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett James

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this BLP about an actor, and moved two external links to references in the article. These are only mentions of his name in credits, however, and I have not found significant coverage to add. He does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST. He has been a producer on films which have won awards, and has won a stage award, the ADA Award, but these don't appear to be notable awards, and I can't find significant coverage of him in the context of them. The refs before I added two were to IMDb, Wikipedia, and two film festivals, which does not meet WP:THREE. Article has been tagged with notability concerns since 2017. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, Theatre, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not finding anything - most of his roles are smaller and less likely to gain mention in sourcing. I was trying to find coverage for his theatrical performances, but I'm not finding much there either. With the awards, it looks like those were "best film" type awards for movies he produced. However the issue with awards as producer is that it's harder to establish their role in the production. Some producers are extremely involved and important to the final product, whereas others aren't really "hands on" with the production outside of funding and initial work. Of course then we have to look at whether or not the awards are notable enough to meet NCREATIVE/NACTOR either partially (count towards but not enough on its own to keep) or fully (enough on its own). I've always thought a good rule of thumb is to see if the awards website lists the producer. If so, then it could be usable (assuming the award is notable), if not it likely isn't.

In any case, with the awards, two of them are known vanity awards (Accolade Competition, Impact Docs Award). Nashville Film Festival and the Beverly Hill Film Festival look like wins from them would probably be usable. Tacoma Film Festival is smaller, but probably OK. The other wins are questionable as far as notability goes and the others are nominations so it's irrelevant whether they are notable or not - none of them are at the level where a nomination would be considered noteworthy. That's limited to things like the Oscars.

I guess the question here is whether or not his producing role was large enough for him to inherit notability from the movies in a similar way that one would as an actor or director. Executive producer credits would probably count, but the generic producer credit is where there's pause. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple of theater reviews. Only three though, which is technically enough I guess to pass NACTOR. I think between that and the kind of nebulous producer notability, that might be enough to keep. I'm not 100% so I am not making an argument for or against at the moment. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What info would you like from me? Emmett James film Life and Larry Brown was short listed for an Academy Award. He has produced a ton of films that are on Netflix, amazon and Hulu where he is the main producer. He is one of the heads of the producers guild of America for documentaries. He does conventions around the world for his acting credits including TITANIC and has appeared as a guest speak at comic con in San Diego for Star Wars. Im a little confused to why this is even a discussion to be honest Savinghollywood (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Boufarhat

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

This article reads somewhat like a resume mixed with a blog, possibly because the subject, per the article, "keeps a low public profile". The references, though 30, are not predominantly about the subject; many are ammouncements about his company, and several others are general articles that mention him in passing. The few sources that are actually about him profile him for having a lot of money, either locally or in Forbes, and are not generally in depth. He does not appear to be personally notable. This is also a problematic WP:BLP, devoting a lot of space to his personal health. FalconK (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. FalconK (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, United Arab Emirates, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of enduring (or even basic) notability. His brief time in a UAE school didn't really leave any footprints here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Coverage exists on plenty of sites to meet WP:BASIC. Check 1, 2, 3, 4. Mysecretgarden (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in agreement. This is a lot of by-the-numbers reporting that is mostly not about the subject. The most that can be said about him from all 4 sources is that he sold a company. FalconK (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of significant coverage - and if he keeps a low profile, then maybe he doesn't want to be a public figure. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D1 Denby Darts

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

Non notable local bus route with limited history and fails WP:GNG Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Team Pennine under the existing Denby Darts heading. This article is too short by itself but would fit into the main article for the service's operator. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 19:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are four different newspaper articles from 2019 to 2021 covering the subject. Contrary to the nominator's statement, this passes WP:GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It fails WP:SIGCOV. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how - I can't access the 6 July piece but the other articles are entirely about the D1 service or its former number, the 233. Garuda3 (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This actually goes beyond what WP:SIGCOV specifies, which is Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Garuda3 (talk) 09:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You got to read up on WP:BUSROUTE.

There is enough information on each page to write a sizeable article - There isn't

Writing the article(s) together or within other articles would exceed article size guidelines - There's already a section on Team Pennine about their Denby Darts branding and there is no further history within this article that makes it worth retaining

Additionally, there is no reason to believe that a bus route between Denby Dale and Huddersfield which both aren't major cities is worth including with the extent of history that is out there on the route. I rest my case. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devons Road DLR station

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

Nothing on the page to suggest there are sufficient independent RS to meet the inclusion criteria. WP:NTRAINSTATION WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. JMWt (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (expecting snowball keep frankly). Just because there are no sources on the article does not mean they do not exist. MRSC (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if you could suggest some relevant sources that meet the standards for inclusion that would be great. Thanks. JMWt (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a few book sources in the article. Have you verified that the offline sources also do not provide SIGCOV? Generally active British railway stations are kept at AfD because of the offline sourcing. Jumpytoo Talk 21:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sourcing available. Vast amounts have been written about all stations in the UK. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for a source assessment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, thinking redirect to section on initial line in Docklands Light Rail About half the text of the article is actually about that initial line, and about the only section that isn't filler is the description of the station itself and its alterations. I'm thinking a better solution would be to break out articles of the various lines into separate articles. Mangoe (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the edits made by MRSC. While stations are not automatically notable, this is an active station and does have coverage in sources, as well as some shorter mentions in sources about other topics. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheraz Daya

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

I can't find a single in-depth piece about this doctor from an independent, reliable source. Most of the current references are either dead links or simple mentions of them. The rest either do not mention them at all, or are primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Ireland, England, Northern Ireland, Minnesota, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for your reasoning. Yikes to UPE--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks direct detailing in independent reliable sources. Every major contributor to this page is either the SPA page creator or an ip contributor. BusterD (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is news coverage, although some of the best of it is in the Daily Mail; I triggered the deprecated sources warning leaving 2 such sources in hidden comments, while citing what I consider less good sources that are not listed as deprecated. The article needs to be cut down and its language further de-promotionalised, and I am going to advocate deletion and redirection of Centre for Sight. But I believe Daya meets GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article has been reference-bombed, which is common with articles by paid editors, which makes it difficult to perform a standard source assessment. Can the author of the article, or any other proponent of the article, identify three best sources that establish general notability, or should we conclude that there are a large number of low-quality sources that do not establish notability? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon... I didn't go through all of them, but I went through 25. Not a single one of them was an in-depth piece from an independent, reliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete pending identification of the three best sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the news coverage does not actually rise to the level of GNG - they are just stories where he is interviewed as part of a larger story, they are not specifically on him. And there's nothing else here which shows notability... SportingFlyer T·C 06:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about things like this? https://www.rcsi.com/impact/details/2017/07/the-gift-of-sight--dr-sheraz-daya-and-katie-piper Erin Dearlove (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in response to Robert McClenon, onel5969, SportingFlyer: I've made a further search that shook loose more news coverage. I think the best sources now in the article are:
- James Meikle (29 April 2005). "Donor stem cells restore sight". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 June 2025.
- "Success for 'first' eye patient". BBC News. 9 August 2007.
- Sarah Hall (15 March 2007). "Stem cell therapy improves sight of patients born with no irises". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 June 2025.

In addition, the Daily Mail has devoted at least 2 articles entirely to Daya. I left the URLs of the following sources commented out in the article (note these are for separate news and 3 years apart):

Ben Tufft (24 April 2016). "British eye surgeon will carry out the country's first transplant using an artificial cornea". Daily Mail. (I presume the Daily Times story that I added yesterday to avoid the ban on citing the Daily Mail is cribbed from this)
Martyn Halle; Stephen Adams (22 June 2019). "Pioneering six-minute cornea transplant surgery could spell the end for reading glasses with patients 'able to make out small print within minutes'". Daily Mail.

I also think the Lifetime Achievement Award contributes to his notability: source that I substituted for a barelink PDF: "AAO 2022 Recap". Millennial EYE. Bryn Mawr Communications. September–October 2022. Retrieved 13 June 2025.

For further interest, my search today focussed on The Guardian (we were already citing The Telegraph, which is less respected as an RS on the project, and the article is more personal in approach) shook loose Serazdaya.com, which is an attack website, it seems prompted by Daya's criticism of rival lens transplant operations; both The Guardian and the Daily Mail have cited him as an expert in investigating one or more of those, so those articles also come up on search although they're not appropriate to cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yngvadottir (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian contains an interview, it's not clear it's a true secondary source. The BBC article is very short and he is only mentioned twice including one quote. The second Guardian article is five paragraphs which contains a quote from him. The Daily Mail articles are obviously unreliable even though they go into more of a profile of him, and the lifetime achievement award - it's very unclear from that link who even issues the award, so it can't contribute to notability. There's really not much here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some more sources for the Lifetime achievement award:

https://cdn.aao.org/pdf/AAOSub_2022_REF_Syllabus.pdf

https://isrs.org/awards-recipients/2022-lifetime-achievement-award-sheraz-m-daya-md/

https://www.ophthalmologyweb.com/1315-News/32679-International-Society-Of-Refractive-Surgery-Of-The-American-Academy-Of-Ophthalmology-Honors-Surgeons-For-Their-Contributions-And-Dedication/:

"About the International Society of Refractive Surgery of the American Academy of Ophthalmology. The International Society of Refractive Surgery of the American Academy of Ophthalmology (ISRS/AAO) is the leading organization for refractive surgeons. ISRS/AAO keeps you up-to-date on the latest clinical and research developments in refractive, cornea, cataract and lens-based surgery. Members are connected to the world’s leading refractive surgeons from over 80 countries through its innovative educational programs, clinical journal, monthly newsletter and meetings around the world. To learn more, visit www.isrs.org." Erin Dearlove (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SportingFlyer's assessment of the sources.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of these any good? (For full disclosure, I am a freelancer for CFS)

https://www.refractivealliance.com/members/daya/

https://eyewire.news/articles/sheraz-daya-md-introduces-the-daya-icl-forceps/?c4src=article:infinite-scroll

https://www.aop.org.uk/ot/news/2016/04/20/a-minute-with-dr-sheraz-daya

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7171229/Pioneering-six-minute-cornea-transplant-surgery-spell-end-reading-glasses.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46433900

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-16918223

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/03/eye-surgery-works-well-what-matters-is-enforcing-standards-of-care

https://www.itnnews.co.in/indian-transplant-newsletter/issue20/STEM-CELLS-USED-TO-TREAT-BLINDNESS-700.htm

https://metro.co.uk/2016/08/03/laser-eye-surgery-heres-what-its-really-like-6027063/ Erin Dearlove (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also please see: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/advice-you-need-read-before-13044859 Erin Dearlove (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write the Sheraz Daya article but would be happy to go through and streamline the sources and add in third party sources or whatever else needs doing Erin Dearlove (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, would it be possible to get a source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone in paticular need to do this and what information is needed? Many thanks. Erin Dearlove (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the coverage about Daya performing a pioneering stem cell surgery on Katy Piper after her acid attack? https://www.rcsi.com/impact/details/2017/07/the-gift-of-sight--dr-sheraz-daya-and-katie-piper Erin Dearlove (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I've prepared a source assessment table. Looks like a very weak keep to me, although the page should be aggressively reduced to a stub. I encourage other editors to edit the table or to create their own tables to demonstrate where they disagree with my assessments. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also came across these in case helpful:

https://www.aop.org.uk/ot/news/2018/05/14/ophthalmologist-honoured

https://www.opticianonline.net/content/news/sheraz-daya-to-perform-artificial-corneal-transplant/

https://www.aao.org/eyenet/article/eyes-on-europe-new-options-in-multifocal-iols Erin Dearlove (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Suriname0
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Guardian			✔ Yes
BBC			✘ No
Guardian			? Unknown
The Telegraph			✔ Yes
RCSI	Promotional coverage of alumnus		✘ No
Daily Mail (various)		WP:DAILYMAIL	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Catherine Fairweather

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

That the subject is a published journalist and author of a book is easily demonstrated, but the question is, is she notable? Doing a WP:BEFORE, I'm not really seeing anything to indicate notability. Her book (which handily had an amazon link included) ranks outside the top 3,000 'home and garden' books. There is passing mention in articles covering her husband (who appears to have a possible COI on the article). Apart from that, it's largely articles she has written. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : Plenty of articles written by this person, nothing about them. I tried looking for book reviews, nothing comes up rather than where to buy the books. The Harper's Bazaar article is a primary source, so not helpful... Rest aren't of much use. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: in a quick ProQuest / EBSCO search, I found two reviews of a book (added to Catherine Fairweather#Career), but it seems the bulk of her career (and the focus of RS) has been magazine / newspaper writing. I don't think WP:NAUTHOR is the way to go. Bridget (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the book reviews as discussed above and added to the article are about a travel book, that directly relates to the individual's career. That seems to show notability, I suppose AUTHOR is met. She's not primarily known as an author of books, but it all relates to her travel writings in mass media. Oaktree b (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - definitely more of a borderline situation. I've added some critical reception of her book and podcast and a bit of news coverage on her travel writing work for magazines. Bridget (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above discussion. Critical reception, good and bad, can add up to notable. Bearian (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Jefferson

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

No sources. Only external link is IMDb. User:Tankishguy talk :) say hi 21:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. User:Tankishguy talk :) say hi 21:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be worth noting that the article title probably should be Stacey Gregg (the page with that name has been deleted a few times previously). Don't think she was ever known as Stacy (without the e). She was also known for roles in the US as Stacey Maxwell, eg in The Virginian, The Monkees and Batman. In the UK she's known for roles in Crossroads https://www.newspapers.com/image/893742133 and playing Sandy in Grease alongside Richard Gere eg https://www.newspapers.com/image/840906998 There's a few more hits at https://www.newspapers.com/search/results/?keyword=%22Stacey+Gregg%22++&region=gb-eng worth checking the British Newspaper Archive as well, see also this two-page articles from the TV Times in 1971 (page 8-9) https://mcmweb.co.uk/tvtimes/1971/Nov%206th%201971.pdf Piecesofuk (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Stacey Gregg she meets WP:NACTOR. She has also been credited as Stacey Jefferson and Stacey Richardson. As well as voicing the roles mentioned in the current article, she played Daffy in all episodes of Tottering Towers and Nurse Baxter in 23 episodes of Crossroads from 1977-1978. On stage, she played Sandy opposite Richard Gere in the British premiere of Grease (musical), first in Coventry and then on the West End. As well as the coverage found by Piecesofuk, there is coverage and information about more roles in the British Newspaper Archive. I'll add more info and sources to the article. There appears to be another Stacey Gregg, probably also notable, who is director of Here Before and co-creator/director of other shows. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Ealing London Borough Council election

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

WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL. This election is scheduled to take place in May 2026. At present, no reliable and independent sources are available regarding the event and possible candidates. The article may be recreated once sufficient verifiable information becomes available. If not deleted, the article could be redirected to Ealing London Borough Council elections for the time being. QEnigma (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. QEnigma (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ealing London Borough Council elections for now. User:Moondragon21 (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps it was a bit early, but it feels a bit of a waste of energy and work to delete it. Perhaps Redirect Kepleo123 (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Election is happening within the next year; article is well-written with information currently available. It wouldn't benefit Wikipedia in any way to remove the existing content only to reinstate it in a few months' time. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chessrat: No reliable, independent sources have been cited. The election may take place next year but it is still WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL if no secondary sources are available. QEnigma (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has five citations.

This sort of thing happens all the time for upcoming elections– someone writes an article on the election in question, someone else tries to get the article deleted, the attempt fails. It ~ould be a far more productive use of time to develop this article and similar articles. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chessrat: With regards to your comment on a well written article, it appears that most of the content including some of the references have been copied from 2022 Ealing London Borough Council election but no attribution given. Please note Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). QEnigma (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody has done so already, I have now added this attribution to the talk page. Thanks for pointing it out! Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon, none of the sources cover the 2026 election. red link to encourage creation when time comes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoblyblob (talk • contribs) 04:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Source assessment table. QEnigma (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20230406212109/https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/who-runs-london/essential-guide-london-local-government	Primary source	Government website	No significant coverage of the subject	✘ No
https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/ealings-new-leader-peter-mason-20629850	Part of Reach plc publishers of the Daily Mirror	No consensus	No significant coverage of the subject	✘ No
https://ealing.news/ealing-council/south-acton-ward-councillor-standing-down-to-focus-on-parliament-role/	Local community-led online publication	No consensus	No significant coverage of the subject	✘ No
https://ealing.news/politics/general-election-2024/deirdre-costigan-elected-as-mp-for-ealing-southall/	Local community-led online publication	No consensus	No significant coverage of the subject	✘ No
https://ealing.news/politics/general-election-2024/three-by-elections-set-for-ealing-after-ward-councillors-become-mps/	Local community-led online publication	No consensus	No significant coverage of the subject	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment I have added a source focusing on the 2026 election specifically to the article. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as too soon and as per the above source analysis. Stifle (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reliability of Ealing.News can be debated, but there is no consensus available (WP:RSPS). As an WP:EVENT, there should be WP:SIGCOV from multiple reliable and independent sources. Such coverage should be specifically about the event and references should not rely on routine announcements or speculation. Therefore, the formation of a shadow cabinet or strategic manoeuvring by an opposition party does not automatically establish notability for the election itself ([31]). Declared candidates are a benchmark and references highlighting official candidate declarations, campaign funding, etc., are essential. QEnigma (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cascades Shopping Centre

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

No significant in-depth coverage outside of local media. Aŭstriano (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, United Kingdom, and England. Aŭstriano (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Portsmouth. Other articles about shopping malls give details such as what movies they've appeared in, what historical registries they're on... According to this article, the Cascades Shopping Centre is just a shopping center. Merge with no prejudice against re-creation if sourcing establishing independent notability can be found. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not a great article, in need of editing, sourcing and removal of non-encyclopaedic comments, but the subject seems clearly notable enough for inclusion. I also note that the proposer states No significant in-depth coverage outside of local media, which suggests that there is significant in-depth coverage in local media. Unless there is something in our notability guidelines that excludes local media, and I certainly cannot find anything, then this statements seems to contradict the proposal. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I certainly don't claim to be an expert and am not sure if it applies here, but WP:AUD does exclude local media. Aŭstriano (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is part of WP:NCORP; if there's a subject guideline here it is WP:NBUILDING, part of WP:NGEO. Peter James (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm browsing the British Newspaper Archive on my phone at the moment, which makes it difficult to assess things properly, but I'm seeing quite a lot of substantial coverage of the early stages of planning and building the shopping centre (up to 1987) in the Portsmouth Evening News, which is more "regional" than "local" in nature. I will investigate fully when I get home tonight. The Cascades is a prominent shopping centre, comparable to those listed in the navbox at the bottom of the article; I feel continued coverage "should" be findable – quite probably in Portsmouth Reference Library, which I have used before. I will follow up on this later. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 14:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost all the google news hits are from local press. Thus fails WP:ORG based on WP:AUD, just another shopping centre. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as right now there is no consensus and we have a variety of outcomes proposed: Deletion, Merger and Keeping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

England

Stirling Square Capital Partners

Fin Roberts

Star Bargains

Dan Bull

Holborn Adams

TJ Morris

Owen Lunt

The Richold Collection

Ladywood House

ToTheBones

James Gow (sporting director)

8 Watford–Mount Vernon Hospital

Appleby Court

Corpus Christi Catholic Church, Wokingham

Madison Welch

TKatKa

Emmett James

Johnny Boufarhat

D1 Denby Darts

Devons Road DLR station

Sheraz Daya

Catherine Fairweather

Stacy Jefferson

2026 Ealing London Borough Council election

Cascades Shopping Centre

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also