Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

WP:DELSORT/ENGLANDWP: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

Institute of Contemporary Chinese Studies

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

@Aloneinthewild PROD'ed this about a week ago, and I de-PROD'ed it to see if I could find sources. I've done the BEFORE searches and I can't put it over the line so I'm bringing it to AfD.

The article was completely unsourced except for university materials. I have made changes<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Institute_of_Contemporary_Chinese_Studies&diff=1328683935&oldid=1328679893> commenting-out brochure-type language changing tenses, just trying to make sense of it "as if" it is kept. I found one source for notability, and another which is an interview of the school head with BBC - this should help with verifiability but marginal or ineligible for notability.

This article is not an orphan. It could be linked to Steve Tsang who was the last director. There was some press coverage generated by Tsang's comments in 2023 but I couldn't find a substantive history of the centre, and some of it is Telegraph/Times hype about party members.

It could be either under Institute or School of Contemporary Chinese Studies. If kept, I suggest it be renamed to School as this was its identity for the last/longest period of its existence. Oblivy (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, and China. Oblivy (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

25 Years (Hawkwind song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. No significant coverage. The only reference in the article, The Great Rock Discography: [1] only has a track listing of the album. Redirect to 25 Years On? Mika1h (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. Mika1h (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 25 Years On. This article dates back to 2007 when the notability requirements for song articles were more lenient, and it was created by an editor focused on Hawkwind-related articles. This single seems to have been listed in a book because a printing error turned some vinyl copies into collector's items. Under today's standards that's just not enough coverage and otherwise the song is just one entry on its parent album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Renault

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

Recently AfC accepted BLP of an economics professor. Original page was by COI author, and contained masses of puffery. After removing most (but not all) of the bloat I see no real evidence of notability. Scotus h-factor is 29 with ~4k cites, too low for WP:NPROF. I am not convinced by the awards, for instance that a "Journal of Econometrics Fellow" is senior enough to count. I note that many of the sources are marked as "inactive", i.e. the DOI is wrong or similar, suggesting LLM and AI hallucinations. (Earlier versions show definite LLM indications in Quillbot.) Ldm1954 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and England. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I based my acceptance on a named professorship, and on an elected fellowship. I am content whether this is deleted or kept - either wil improve Wikipedia. I shall remain neutral. It was full of overblown material and greatly in need of serious cullig of extraneous puffery. I can see why Ldm1954 has edited it so severely already and why they considered it was worth nominating for edeletion. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:12, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just checked some of the DOI's which exist. I did not check all, just 5. Of these 3 are wrong, clear AI hallucinations. In retrospect I probably should have done a G15 CSD, I wont change it now. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as an alternative to WP:TNT. He does clearly pass WP:PROF through the named professorship at Brown (#C5, which can be verified [2] but not from the 404 sources in the article) and also the one at UNC if that can be independently verified, and through heavily cited publications (#C1, quadruple-digit citation counts for "Stochastic volatility", "Indirect inference", and "Long memory in continuous‐time stochastic volatility models", and many more with triple-digit counts), at least. But the AI stink here needs a lot of effort to wash off. In the meantime it should not be in article space. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 The Hundred season

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

No significant detail about the event is known yet. It's WP:TOOSOON for now. Vestrian24Bio 13:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and England. Vestrian24Bio 13:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify As an WP:ATD. It is WP:TOOSOON. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace as in next few months (probably 4-6 months), there will likely be enough information for this article, but not right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of English cricketers (1851–1860)

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

As per this discussion, the list is not notable as a group. It contains no meaningful information, and it fails WP:NLIST. It completely lacks reliable sources about the group as a whole.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

All fail NLIST. Jack (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Cricket, and England. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep but section~~: These lists seem to fit the notablity criteria for NLIST since they relate to First-class cricket by date, but might be more useful sectioned by something else (batting averages or something else that cricket fans might appreciate?) gilgongo (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair comment, but doing it would be a massive task, and we'd just be replicating one of the online statistical databases. They cannot meet the NLIST criteria as a mere collection of names without group verification. Jack (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see they're not all first-class cricket players (not sure what gave me that impression). Most seem to be in Category:English cricketers but others not (unless that's just a mistake). But even if the non-English players were removed, this makes me think I'm confused about how NLIST relates to WP:CAT! gilgongo (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: these are all just lists of links with no informational content and redundant to categories. Vestrian24Bio 10:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am now persuaded by @Vestrian24Bio observations. gilgongo (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, gilgongo, you need to strike the original vote, as otherwise you would seem to have voted twice. Thanks again. Jack (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Piriform Software

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

Not independently notable outside of CCleaner, fails WP:CORPDEPTH for standalone articles of companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, Software, and England. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Avast or CCleaner or delete: This article has many unreliable sources such as WP:BLOGS and those that are reliable are about Avast's acquisition of Piriform, rather than being about Piriform as an entity. Either redirecting the page to the parent company or the product, both of which are notable, would be fine. If not, I see no reason to oppose deleting. 11WB (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CCleaner. The article subject is mentioned there and it is a plausible search term. Pavlor (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jelena Džankić

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Orphan article. The sources are mainly primary, the 2 last sources are not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Politics. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bulgaria, Italy, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She has authored a book with at least two reviews[3][4] and another with at least one[5]. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Those "at least two reviews" are actually only one review, linked from two different sites. But I found and added eight reviews of three books to the article, enough I think for WP:AUTHOR despite one of the three being an edited volume. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Contemporary Music Performance

AfDs for this article:

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

This article does not include significant independent coverage from reliable secondary sources, appears to rely heavily on self-published or primary sources, and may not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for organisations (WP:N). As written, it reads like promotional content rather than an encyclopedic article. For deletion review under WP:Articles for deletion. ~2025-41481-71 (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of anonymous editor--above text is copied from article talk page. I am neutral at this time. --Finngall ^talk 23:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 00:13, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands Bus route X10

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

Current article length not justifying the criteria for it to stay. I've searched on Google and couldn't found any significant sources and materials that would help expanding the article. And nothing special initially for this bus route, neither branded nor significant for its history, with very limited or even no online sources or materials mentioning its history. Hlfxcuc (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This actually has 5 sources from 3 separate independent publishers, so appears to be notable. Most of the bus route articles written by the user that wrote this page that were nominated for AFD survived. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any sources to establish notability. They were all just passing mentions. Despite the above user saying it has 5 independent sources, only 2 of them, both from Express & Star, have significant coverage. DAmik001 (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May I also add that they both seem to cover the same event, a route change to this bus route. One of them just covers a discussion about the changes and the other talks about them being introduced. DAmik001 (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two sources with significant coverage (per above) is enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. --Garuda3 (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Route seems notable per coverage. Seasider53 (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing the notability here. Sources are predominantly local level and there is not much in the way of a lengthy history. Content is mainly routine coverage. Ajf773 (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but one source is local WP:RUNOFTHEMILL/WP:PRIMARYNEWS coverage, the other at keybuses.com seems to be a passing mention in a comment piece. Does not meet WP:GNG. Orange sticker (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Malfated

AfDs for this article:

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

I declined the speedy as I don't see this as a G11, but nor to they appear to meet N:MUSIC. Likely a copyvio from an offline source Star Mississippi 03:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Star Mississippi 03:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GamerPro64 07:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is unreferenced, and there is no evidence via the usual avenues it can be referenced. ResonantDis_tortion 23:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester bus route 409

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

Non-notable route whose 'History' section appears to be partially generated by ChatGPT; see 'Mancunian1001' blog cite URL and second para, which according to GPTZero has a 100% AI-generated rating. Hullian111 (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Hullian111 (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LLM CabinetCavers (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources on the page cannot establish notability as they are either primary, unreliable or are not significant enough. I couldn't find any sources that make the route notable. DAmik001 (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and other comments. Article creator is blocked and many similar articles created by them have also been deleted for similar reasons. Ajf773 (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing special for the route initially (as neither prior branding nor something significant for its history), making it tough to establish notability. Plus, finding adequate sources regarding bus routes outside London was relatively challenging. That's why you'll found only a handful of bus route articles here in Wikipedia aren't London bus routes. Hlfxcuc (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete current sources don't establish notability, can't find anything other than WP:RUNOFTHEMILL news coverage, including a brawl which recently broke out on one of the buses. Orange sticker (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Sargent

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSIC. Almost all citations are primary sources. Aneirinn (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Lacks independent coverage. Svartner (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 03:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched for his name on newspapers.com for March 2009 and couldn't find any obituaries. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing in the article is largely primary. I can bring up about a dozen obituaries for a variety of people with this name, none for this person. I don't see anything about this person in my search... Has been tagged for almost 20 yrs with no improvement. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. I'm always confused by people (friends? fans?) who write articles about another person, but leave no hints or explanation for us to get more information. This person had a common name, so searching for more citations without context is impractical. Bearian (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — there isnt in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GNGs ~2025-40198-86 (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Trouble finding the obit may be because he was using a stage name, but I found it and have made a couple other improvements (though the article needs cleanup), citing a brief review in an academic journal and a newspaper preview. His archived website quotes about a dozen reviews, mostly in local papers, so they're out there to be found. Adds up to notability. BrechtBro (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Butler

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

No significant coverage found. Article cites mostly just listings and movie pages. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 10:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Entertainment. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 10:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant independent coverage, and his roles are minor and sparse. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:NACTOR. Svartner (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am curious to know why it was accepted in Afc as a C-class article and moved to mainspace at the first place, there are no signs of significant coverage to begin with. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 08:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did not find evidence of notability. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Natkiel

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

Fails GNG and lacks SIGCOV. All I could find was non-independent sources or mentions in match reports. Dougal18 (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minimal secondary coverage. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not finding enough SIGCOV sources to suggest notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Kingsley

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

This article is supported almost entirely by passing mentions or primary sources. The most notable coverage was a single review of a book he wrote, everything else is a primary source or brief. I searched online and he only appeared on non-reliable sources, like personal websites and podcasts, or in pieces he wrote himself. aaronneallucas (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. aaronneallucas (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Enervation (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not enough here or out there for this to meet WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly Keep I found him on Forbes and multiple other prominent news places so end the thing he got both the significant coverage and was notable enough with high achievements and awards, I just added those to the references AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "prominent" does not mean reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I found his extremely reliable London gazette official record and just added it, you cant let the page go anymore and it must stay forever https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4783341#:~:text=Notice%20details,ID:%204783341%20Notice%20code:%201129 AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not passing mention at all check it out AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate keep vote struck. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok I wont do that, but tell them my new reference that will definitely save him for being deleted AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Team Soho

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

Appears to fail org notability. A company that was created from Sony Computer Entertainment Europe in 2002, but only listed on two The Gataway games, with one being with London Studio and the third being canceled. If I understand correctly, the lead says closed the same year 2002 but the infobox says 2008. Appears the relevance period is from 1994 to 2002, but then the article name is rather misleading and the 1996 Next Generation is the only source that covers that period. IgelRM (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United Kingdom. IgelRM (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:NCORP. Svartner (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:NCORP Afr (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Getaway (video game) or Sony Interactive Entertainment. WP:ATD works here. Go D. Usopp (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. Per above. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Fettiplace

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

WP:Notability. Being a member of a wealthy family does not make one notable. All references are genealogy citations that the average person would be in. Docmoates (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Docmoates (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Some source, though about the family, not the person: https://www.berkshirehistory.gowerweb.co.uk/articles/fettiplace_family.html. Better Nuncio (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I found some full dedicated mentions on him on some sources that were not just passing but reliable sources like the house of Commons or other journal books, even your private neighbor on the street could be on those genalogy references but not on those new references I added, which are reliable look at them AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Colville

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sourcing in this article is highly misleading. Saunders book which allegedly has coverage of the subject from pages 143-161; in fact only mentions Colville once on page 159 in a single sentence (you can view the book at https://archive.org/details/operationplunder0000saun/page/158/mode/2up?q=+Colville) Both unit histories and the PDF document are WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources, and are not usable towards notability, and The London Gazette piece is literatly just a list. Not one of these sources contains WP:SIGCOV and I was unable to locate anything in newspapers.com, google books, or google scholar.4meter4 (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I take your point about lack of coverage in material available online. That said this guy commanded a brigade during Operation Plunder and went on to command 51st (Highland) Division i.e. half of the army in Scotland. So there may be more material out there / not written yet. In the meantime, I have added some more sources. Dormskirk (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How have these materials addressed the issue of WP:SIGCOV? From what I can tell these are just more sources with passing mentions of the subject (with the exception of the Territorial and Home Guard Magazine which is written by people who knew him/served with him so lacks independence). You've done a nice job piecing together tid bits of information found here and there, but is there in fact a single independent and reliable secondary source discussing Colville in detail? Please point out which source(s) would count here towards GNG.4meter4 (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments above: I have already conceded that there is a lack of coverage in material available online (although there are many passing references, which is not surprising as Colville was a key figure in Operation Plunder). Let's leave it to other editors to consider. Dormskirk (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm trying to get you to better articulate under what policy language you are voting keep. Essentially you've admitted the sourcing here doesn't meet GNG, and you are making an achievement based claim for keeping the article. That would require some sort of WP:SNG, but as WP:SOLDIER was deprecated there really isn't an SNG for this type of person and GNG is our standard for military officers. As such, this seems like an WP:IAR argument at present. I'm not familiar enough with military decorations, but perhaps one of these awards you added would substantiate a notability claim under WP:ANYBIO? Were any of these achievement significant enough to make that argument? Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:ANYBIO criteria 1 and 2 both apply here - criteria 1 as he received the DSO and bar i.e. twice, and criteria 2 not just because of his role in Operation Plunder but also because he commanded 51st (Highland) Division, which encompassed half the army in Scotland (the other half was 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division). Dormskirk (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am neutral on this point, as I am not familiar enough with military type awards to make a judgement here. This at least gives other editors a policy based argument that they can consider. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dormskirk's arguments. DonBeroni (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he achieved something (major fighting in ww2) making him have a notable acheivemnt and he also had reliable sources, as seen in Dormskirk's argument AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Dormskirk. Revolving Doormat (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He received a 107-word obituary in The Daily Telegraph[6]. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vallentine Mitchell

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

I was unable to find any significant coverage of this company in any source, it is all reviews of books they published and passing mentions in stories about Frank Cass. However, searching for book publishing company sources is uniquely annoying due to the mass of hits for books they published, so I could have missed something. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and Judaism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I'd argue that the many, many reviews of numerous books published by this imprint suggests that there is a case for notability not unlike that for books themselves, I found some material that may help us clear NORG. This has a slightly longer detail of the imprint under Cass, discussing its unprofitability. This gives us SIGCOV of "Vallentine, Mitchell" (as it apparently originally operated) as they went through the process of acquiring, translating, and publishing Anne Frank's diary. The same ground is covered more briefly here and with a bit more color here. This was published by Vallentine Mitchell but can be used to put flesh on the bones of the article. Overall, we have an influential publisher that has published a few books that either already have articles or deserve ones themselves and, on its own, appears to also warrant an article. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can also confirm what PARAKANYAA said: searching for details on a publisher is not exactly an easy task when there are dozens of reviews and advertisements that tag along with each search. Most of my success came by searching "Vallentine Mitchell" "Anne Frank" on Google; I may attempt similar cross-searches later to see if we can nab a couple other useful sources. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources say very little besides they published the one famous book, so I wouldn't exactly call that coverage significant. Is there a single source that gives them sigcov that is not related to that? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look for sources later, but I would argue that a subject as significant as Anne Frank's diary is capable of producing multiple notable subjects in its wake, the same way that a major company might help produce a notable businessman. When paired with the sources on the company's time under Cass and its role as the publisher of many books reviewed in academic journals and papers of record, I'm inclined to believe that this passes the notability standards for reasons of sustained importance. This is definitely one of the more nuanced cases, though, and it's probably good that you took this to AfD. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This source provides some coverage regarding the publication of the diary. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think WP:NCORP is pretty clear that companies can't inherit notability from their individual products, so the reviews of their books are not inherently useful here. But some of the sources about Anne Frank's diary do give us coverage of the company's activities as a company. In particular, I'd add this book which appears to spend five pages discussing how and why Mitchell published the diary, with rather a lot of analysis of how it fit in with the company's overall business practices. Some of the sources about Cass do too; eg this memorial I found has a paragraph on Vallentine-Mitchell with the kind of overview assessment that is useful for an encyclopedia article.

(Also, some misc passing newspaper coverage that could still flesh out an article: [7] [8] [9] [10])

It's not necessary for the subject to be the primary topic of the sources, as long as the coverage that exists is significant, and I think the retrospective analytical framing pushes it past routine/passing coverage. Publishers often don't meet NCORP and (as noted) are hard to research so this wasn't a bad nom, but for me I think this one has just enough. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Herman's Hermits Hits

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

Found this under the "suggested edits" tab of my homepage. Fails WP:NALBUM. The name of this EP makes sources nearly impossible to find, but I doubt significant, reliable ones exist. Red Shell Momentum 22:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, United Kingdom, and England. Red Shell Momentum 22:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Herman's Hermits discography#UK extended plays, where it is listed, as an alternative to deletion. ✗plicit 00:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G. T. H. Bracken

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

Not a single reference. Google did not turn up anything notable. Docmoates (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, India, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chief Secretary of Madras Presidency, KCIE and CSI. Plus he has a full obituary in The Times. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp - I am happy to withdraw if you can find any sourcing where he is the focus of the article. I found nothing really documented other than some social media and a few where he is casually mentioned which as you know does not meet the notability standard. To address the obituary in the NYT... I am sure you are aware but just in case you are not, anyone can buy an obituary in the times. See: https://legacy.memoriams.com/network/thenewyorktimes/obituary Docmoates (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tha actual Times, not the New York Times! The UK's newspaper of record. No, full obituaries were certainly not for sale in The Times. They were only given when staff believed the person was significant enough to have one. And we have always considered a full obit in a major national British newspaper to be sufficient for notability. Plus he had both a knighthood and a companion in British orders. As I said, very clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, @Necrothesp but you actually can here: https://www.newsukadvertising.co.uk/the-times/announcements#:~:text=Announcements%20has%20a%20daily%20dedicated,'%20beginnings%2C%20betrothals%20and%20bereavements. Docmoates (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's an announcement, not an obituary! An obituary is a biography of a deceased person written by the newspaper's staff. It's not the same as a notice of death. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp That includes deaths. See: https://www.newsukadvertising.co.uk/Package?publication=times&section=Announcements&category=Deaths Docmoates (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's an announcement of death, not an obituary! A full obituary is not a couple of lines posted in a newspaper by friends or relatives. It's an article written by a member of the newspaper's staff. Only notable people are given them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see much about this person, Gsearch hits on the Imperial War Museum, seems to be a soldier there with the same name, although I can't copy the link to it... Not sure what's going on, but that's still only a biography. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a couple of citations verifying some of the biographical information. Search term "G. T. H. Bracken" brings up c. 200 hits on archive.org and pages of hits on Google Books. ResonantDis_tortion 08:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Sir Geoffrey Bracken seems to have been more common than G. T. H. Bracken. That's the title of his Times obit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @Necrothesp would you able to add a citation to the article for the Times Obit please? I am unable to find it. Further note - this 1945 Nature article states the subject was Finance Minister for the Madras Presidency; indicating a potential pass on WP:NPOL. ResonantDis_tortion 13:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  [11] Behind a paywall, obviously.-- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @Necrothesp I think that is pretty important to the article to show notability. When I click the link I get a university login screen. Can you provide the title of the article so I can for it in an alternative sources. Docmoates (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient evidence he was a member of a legislative body so a claim to notability via WP:NPOL. Furthermore Knight Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire contributes to a significant honour WP:ANYBIO pass, and finally there is a lot of sourcing out there, including the WP:AGF Times Obit and other book mentions, which I have not fully analysed but shows potential to meet WP:BASIC. ResonantDis_tortion 19:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he had achievments and there are many more references out there if you search "G. T. N. Bracken" so keep it, close da case AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he has received honors for his civil service in British India, which would then be India after he left office. Also, the people who served as Chief Secretary of Madras Presidency before and after him have articles just as large, and by looking at them, these two people did not receive such honors. haruka amaranth 04:21, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources primarily about the subject. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL. He was as the article states Revenue member of the Governor's Executive Council of Madras Presidency. I understand that he served as the Finance Minister for this federal subject of the British Empire. This newspaper clipping confirms that. Here is sigcov regarding his proposal to establish the "Madras Famine Relief Fund"[12]. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Belbin

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

Not notable, fails WP:BIO. Popcornfud (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Journalism. Popcornfud (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So far I've found a couple of pieces about him in the Nottingham Evening Post [13] [14], short reviews of What You Don't Know, Bone & Cane and The eBay Book in The Guardian [15] [16] [17], a paragraph about Bone & Cane here [18], a review of his memoir here [19] and a little bit of coverage of his children's and young adult books here [20] [21]. Still working my way through some of the other children's and young adult books. At a minimum this should probably be redirected to What You Don't Know (David Belbin novel) though. MCE89 (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found an astonishing number of works with one source about them, and far fewer with two for NBOOK than I would really have expected. I notice, though, that several of these are in series -- e.g., Bone & Cane and What You Don't Know are in the same series, which makes for 4-5 reviews of that series, and there were 12 books in the Point Crime series which combined have at least a half-dozen reviews. There are varying views on how the notability of individual books contribute to the notability of a series as a whole, but I think there's a reasonable case at least for the Bone & Cane series. With Love Letters also notable, and so much material in general, that pushes me in favour of having an author bio to home it all.

A full breakdown of what we have, per book:

- Avenging Angel: Several mentions of the book being taught in a school: [22] [23] [24]
- NBOOK? Bone & Cane review from MCE89 (a bit short) review from MCE89 (looks great) appears to be something in this magazine
- City of Crime: a profile review
- Denial: review from MCE89
- Don't Mention the Night: review from MCE89
- The eBay Book: review from MCE89 brief mention another passing mention
- Final cut: brief notice
- Haunting Time: first review from MCE89
- NBOOK!! Love Lessons: a profile analysis in a journal article!! passing mention in this article discussed in this review of a scholarly book! and the book itself is definitely sigcov!!
- Shoot the Teacher: first review (by a child) second review (also by a child) brief adult review
- Suspects: a profile
- NBOOK? What You Don't Know: review from MCE89 The blurb quotes "Joan Smith in The Times" but I haven't been able to locate/verify that this was a published review; if it was, that would be NBOOK here too.

Other finds: there's surely a goldmine in the PhD dissertation he wrote about his own books (to be used as WP:ABOUTSELF of course, not for notability); this piece on library lending has some background info on him; this advice article he wrote could flesh out the article.

If anyone finds second reviews for 2-3 more of those books above, that would push me over to a strong keep. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium Comms

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

Not yet notable per WP:CORP. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only press releases and passing mentions. They have some notable clients, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. The claim of pro bono work for an Emirati prince is a bit startling: pro bono, really? Is he strapped for cash this month? Hard times chez Qassimi? Wikishovel (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and England. Wikishovel (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not sure about the exact nature of it but the source mentioned it. might be some sort of emritization initative to support the UAE attract companies? Schumi19799 (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I did include several non press release sources related to this company and also the press gazette official ranking of the news site it owns. @Wikishovel: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schumi19799 (talk • contribs)

Delete, removing all the PR and SEO blackhat sources, there's almost nothing about the company. The "maybe they are the parent of this racing website" seems really odd. Sam Kuru (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified their ownership of the racing site now and added some more sources. this is only the second page ive made so im not entirely sure about the threshold... feedback is appreciated.

Those are all the sources I'm able to find so I wont be making more edits. Schumi19799 (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As before, I've removed advertorials, blogs, and PR/SEO. None of those even make the claim that they "own" the other site, just that it's an advertising partner. I assume the same "entrepreneur" owns both, but that's not supported or material to this discussion. Please stop adding SEO sources - that's not helping. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a message on your person talk package because i had some questions... please reply. also what exactly is an seo source? it all seems a bit arbitrary to me. Schumi19799 (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru Schumi19799 (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay just to keep the conversation here, no need to post to my talk page. You're responded to the COI request that you have no connections to this small SEO/PR firm, which is presumably just a small number of people. Totally not you or your employer, for sure. Got it.

While The Khaleej Times is generally a fine source, the "KT Network" section of the site is paid placement without editorial controls (typically blackhat SEO and press releases).
iBusinessnews is a junk news-skinned SEO blog. The address is a "virtual office" and there are ads on the site for paid placement. Authors are just one or two bloggers, and most of it is LLM-generated. This is not in any way a RS.
Bitzuma is a disclaimed cryptoblog, we don't use those even for crypto-related concerns and certainly not to pretend they support PR/SEO startup notability
LinkedIn is just user-generated material with no editorial control. This one even links back to the KT material, which is just PR

I've also removed some sketchy material that seems to have nothing to do with the primary topic. Maybe the person that runs "Imperium Comms" also runs a random F1 fan site, but that's not clear from the source, nor does it impart any notability on the company. What you're left with is nothing but primary sources (links to the company and a user-generated bio for the owner). None of this meets WP:NCORP. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But if it's a PR does it even matter as long as it's confirming something in a reputable source? asking for future reference if i decide to make more pages, though it doesnt really seem worth the effort haha.

the source did say they own the site directly... it's not a "fan site", it's one of the largest f1 news sites globally and top 20 sports news in the UK... i did provide a press gazette source for this which I dont understand how you can call it sketchy when it's the most trusted source for reporting on the media industry.

just trying to get an understanding for future... strangely my first page creation went fine even though i only did 10 minutes research and provided just 2 sources.

is there anyway to propose a topic and get other wiki users thoughts before creating? Schumi19799 (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

for instance, can i make a page about Edelman or does that lack notability? Schumi19799 (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases, advertorials, "guest posts", contributor blog posts on news sites are outside of the editorial controls and fact checking for publishers. They are not reliable sources for anything other than "the company said" claims, and often not even that. They are not independent and useless for determining notability, which is a significant hurdle for this company. No one cares about your F1 site.Sam Kuru (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a place to ask for editors feedback to check if a page can be suitable? or better yet, is there a place on wikipedia where editors have proposed pages that should be created??

I want to give making a page another crack but think it's best to do it for a topic thats already highlighted for creation by an editor so I know my hard work wont be for nothing. Schumi19799 (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Schumi19799. The best way to get editor feedback on a topic is to create the article in draft, as you did at Draft:Planet F1. That saves everyone time and effort. Wikishovel (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much I will have a look and find another topic. I wish other editors here were as helpful as you.... seems some of them think spending so many hours here and doing nothing else in life gives them a right to be condescending to newbies Schumi19799 (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. I hope you stay on, and keep contributing. And I hope I'm never condescending to new editors, intentionally or otherwise. Have you seen Wikipedia:Requested articles yet? It's a giant set of requested articles that haven't been written yet. There are also WikiProjects with their own lists of requested articles: see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Suggestions. Join a WikiProject in a topic you're interested in, and they'll be glad of your help. Wikishovel (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requested articles is exactly what i am looking for. now I can make pages without worrying that theyll get deleted for lacking notability. thanks very much! Schumi19799 (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Elliott (composer and arranger)

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

This is a WP:REFBOMB, with no WP:SIGCOV that I can discern. There are some quotes by or involving him in some of the sources, but all in the context of something else - just passing mentions. asilvering (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. asilvering (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No policy based arguments or any !votes yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The issue is that he's not even mentioned in the most reliable sources. He's associated with many hits, much in the way that an executive producer might be. I need to be convinced that this is not a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a large, well-written article, but Wikipedia is not for promotion. The article claims he is connected to an Oscar-winning movie, the source describes his role as follows, While the demands of the filming process forced the chopping and changing of the songs, Marius was in contact with London‑based composer Chris Elliott, who had the job of arranging many of the orchestral parts. "We were emailing back and forth," explains Marius. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I deleted two sections as WP:BLP violations. I looked at quite a few of the sources. While a number of those could be used to fill in details if there were some sources that provided WP:SIGCOV, I don't think that there are adequate sources for an article at the moment. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 44

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

The article has 2 sources, a book named "The Story of the London Bus" that is not Significant coverage and a map from Transport for London which is a primary source and is used to source the route map. On a WP:BEFORE I couldn't find many sources to prove notability, [25] is the only source I can find that seems to pass all the GNG criterias, but that is just 1 source. DAmik001 (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. DAmik001 (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 17:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC) Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of bus routes in London. Not convinced yet there is notability. This appears to be a long standing route dating back to the 1950s, there is certainly enough history on fandom pages but most of these are not backed up by reliable, independent sources, and much of the content is just route changes over the years. Redirect until there is enough content and sourcing to guarantee notability. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More support for redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have now expanded the article using reliable sources----Pontificalibus 08:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual bus routes are rarely notable and need some than local sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the article's recent expansion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge , until more significant sources were found before restoring and adding to the article. Hlfxcuc (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bus routes in London where it already has a row in the table. Merge not necessary as all the content in the current article is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Orange sticker (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Radio (Cambridge and Ely)

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

Nothing in the article shows this station is notable. The sources, and my BEGFORE, show only routine coverage at the catalogue or passing mentions, failing WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Articles about radio stations which cover a single city and its surrounds are seen as notable enough for them to be included on Wikipedia. Therefore this article clearly passes this long established notability test. Rillington (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rillington So it's notable because WP:ITSNOTABLE? Recursion (computer science) is fun but not a very good argument in deletion. And there is no "long established notability test" - or, on contrary, it fails it, since WP:BCASTOUTCOMES clearly says: "Licensed broadcast radio and TV stations are generally deleted if they lack significant coverage in reliable sources." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of notable references. WP has better things to do than to chase down articles that have been contributed to hundreds of times over more than twenty years. Smb1001 (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smb1001 Which references are "notable"? Can you elaborate, in the spirit of WP:THREE? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article definitely needs bolstering. I've tried with references, but my access to the good ones all stops in the early 2000s (Cambridge paper and Broadcast). The problem with the sourcing is there's nothing really in-depth. For a radio station that had a 27-year run as an independent entity, that's a bit disconcerting. Like, there's enough there to put a barebones history in. But one or two in-depth articles would make me feel a lot better about this station having an article. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to very specifically reply to the above !votes from Rillington and Smb1001. Arguments like Rillington's used to carry the day on this encyclopedia. Then we had the 2021 NMEDIA RfC. It told us in no uncertain terms that our longtime direction was too lax—and I should know, I instigated the whole thing. If you haven't been around the topic area in the last few years, this is a mindset shift that can be alien to you. And the sourcing I have found is passable but just short of where I'd truly want to see it to make a keep !vote of my own. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

England

Institute of Contemporary Chinese Studies

25 Years (Hawkwind song)

Eric Renault

2026 The Hundred season

List of English cricketers (1851–1860)

Piriform Software

Jelena Džankić

Institute of Contemporary Music Performance

West Midlands Bus route X10

The Malfated

Greater Manchester bus route 409

Raymond Sargent

Doc Butler

Kate Natkiel

Al Kingsley

Team Soho

Alexander Fettiplace

Edward Colville

Vallentine Mitchell

Herman's Hermits Hits

G. T. H. Bracken

David Belbin

Imperium Comms

Christopher Elliott (composer and arranger)

London Buses route 44

Star Radio (Cambridge and Ely)

Mornflake

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also