Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

Points of interest related to England on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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:

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

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

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

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

Entirely promotional article created by a WP:SPA. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• merge with Amanda Levete. --hroest 19:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Companies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• merge with Amanda Levete Djflem (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Amanda Levete. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Of the sources in the article, the only kinda in-depth coverage is in WeGotTickets (a ticketing company?) and DrownedInSound (web-zine). There's an interview w/ the founder in BBC Music blog, but I'm not convinced any of these are strong enough reliable sources for a notability argument. All the others are just mentions of Fika in the context of an album that has been released etc. WP:BEFORE in newspapers.com, google news/books, pressreader didn't turn up any additional coverage beyond mentions. Considered ATD but I don't see a clear merge or redirect target as the founder doesn't appear to be notable and the record label is associated with multiple musical groups. Zzz plant (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United Kingdom. Zzz plant (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'd say this clears the hurdle of WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indie labels, and the Drowned in Sound and BBC coverage are solid starts on sourcing. Chubbles (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable software company. Routine coverage like M&As, renaming, investments, are not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. UPE history is another issue. Gheus (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Software, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after article rescue work (again). Any recent UPE work (if that's what it was) had already been reverted by the nominator. Restore former material of historical interest, e.g. OS/2 software as highlighted in the previous AFD. – Fayenatic London 13:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I haven't found anything outside of primary sources and routine business announcements. Many sources are "fintech" focused and I tend to view such sources with the same skepticism as crypto focused sites. I haven't found much in the way of notability for the previous iterations of the company either. The sources on the historic article don't seem to meet reliability or notability requirements either. The old page seems like a relic of a more lenient era of wikipedia. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article was largely written by a self-declared COI editor. All the sources cited are press releases. WP:BEFORE does not turn up anything other than PR and directories. Maybe Rathfelder can find some meritorious sources, but I did not. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It needs editting, not deletion. Rathfelder (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, England, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Henry VIII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't think there's enough here to be a standalone article like Wives of Henry VIII. The table included in this article is already in Henry VIII, so I don't see a merge being useful, especially since most of the remaining content of speculated children doesn't have any sourcing at all. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and England. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Already included in the main article, this is just extraneous and unnecessary. nf utvol (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This fails WP:NCORP. Majority of the sources are not about the company but about people related to it. And there are also much primary sources in the article. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested Prod. Appears to fail WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. All that came up were passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3 via Newspapers.com. JTtheOG (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSBASIC due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested draftification. The only coverage of this football player I can find are trivial announcements that he'll be joining Chelsea and run-of-the-mill stories about his scoring in particular games. The Forbes article appears to be unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. Note that NFOOTY has been explicitly repealed by consensus of the community. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability#202203070648_Wugapodes_2 and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 49#Association football (soccer). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Kazakhstan, and England. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep I already cited the most no. of sources and citations in Eng than other language versions, even more than the Kazakh version. Also included sourves from Kazakhstan FA and FC Kairat, please consider those. Chelsdog (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep International player, loads of sources on google, did you bother with a WP:BEFORE, [1], [2], [3]. Terrible nomination in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you read the part of my nom where I said all of the sources I could find are trivial coverage or run of the mill stories about his transfer to Chelsea? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment confirms that the coverage is largely based on participation. Participation-based coverage is not sufficient for notability based on the two RfCs linked to in the nom. If footy editors want that changed, they're welcome to go start another RfC at NSPORTS. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. Sources are too trivial/routine. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  added few more sources including BBC and YAHOO News. I guess they would be notable and reliable enough? Chelsdog (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Forbes, Vesti 2, and Chelsea Chronicle are decent enough to meet WP:GNG in my view. All Wikipedia articles require multiple significant coverage on reliable secondary sources. If his career with Chelsea FC does not pan out when he officially arrives there (e.g. only played a few matches), this page should be deleted. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly passes GNG with Kazakh sources and now after his big transfer.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Played once professionally. We could redirect to 2010–11 Aldershot Town F.C. season as he is mentioned there. RossEvans19 (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. RossEvans19 (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per above to 2010–11 Aldershot Town F.C. season, I tried to have a look to see if he did anything after being release from Aldershot, but see nothing. Very similar to other AfD Mark Wright (footballer, born 1981). Couldn't see any coverage after release. Govvy (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 16:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 West Sussex County Council election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It's too soon to know if there even will be County Council elections for West Sussex, since there's a massive reorganization going on. A draft exists if this election comes to pass. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and England. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and too soon. Lots of newly created 2026 council elections that would be better stored as drafts until coverage comes up. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No sources available, and there isn't even certainty of the event going to happen. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is definitely WP:TOOSOON. It lacks WP:SIGCOV and therefore it is not ripe enough for inclusion. I am sure that as we get closer, coverage will be done on this event but for now, there is not even one RS on the page to bolster inclusion at this point. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Romney Am Dram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, Before search yeilds nothing. GNews yeild no result. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Entertainment, and England. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a single independent ref cited, and a completely WP:MILL amateur theatre group. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can only bring up their website and facebook posts, which are all primary sources. What's in the article now are simple confirmation of various performances. Not meeting notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Speedy Delete per WP:A7 - Literally the first thing that pops up on my end is this Wikipedia article's talk page! This fails WP:GNG and WP:MILL at the same time. JTZegers (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No notability or sources.

Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This lacks RSes, there is only one source and it is not independent. This definitely lacks notability and should not be included. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Turbans (music group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject appears to meet WP:MUSICBIO#12 "featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network". See BBC R6 2018, BBC R3 2018, and BBC R3 2019. ResonantDis_tortion 06:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The sourcing is awfully thin on this original research-heavy article. We have two tongue-in-cheek student publication blog posts. Two other student articles talk about the concept of

college marriage ([4], [5]), again both of them somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and neither mentions "college families". The other two sources are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, but neither discuss this topic. One doesn't mention it at all, and the other discusses it in the context of college students' parents. A WP:BEFORE search turns up only the latter references, generic mentions of the birth families of students going off to college. If this concept is anything at all, it appears to be a meme or private joke at Oxbridge schools, and its existence is not attested beyond student media, leaving it a failure of WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like a load of tongue-in-cheek rubbish that someone has taken seriously. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No coverage in RS PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable theme park ride. No coverage i can find Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Alton Towers#Main Past Attractions – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources (e.g., reputable news, academic coverage) to demonstrate notability. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Kingdom, and England. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - run of the mill head-hunting business. See WP:SPAM and WP:NOTFB. Bearian (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRITE sources. - Imcdc Contact 01:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Move to Wiktionary - dicdef with list. Compare wikt:-ton#Derived terms --Altenmann >talk 00:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Wiktionary per nom.

ApexParagon (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Wiktionary — Maile (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about Redirect to List of generic forms in place names in the British Isles? —Tamfang (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea (you mean "merge/redirect", right?), but the list must be moved to wiktionary anyway. --Altenmann >talk 06:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not merge; I see little point in retaining the list of examples. —Tamfang (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The top of the page has good referenced encyclopedic text to merge. --Altenmann >talk 00:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done: List of generic forms in place names in the British Isles § ington. --Altenmann >talk 06:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to wikitionary. As per WP:NOTDICT. CharlesWain (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDICT. >>> Extorc.talk 08:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to wiktionary as already stated since WP:WWIN and WP:NOTDICT. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Entirely promotional and fails WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Science, Medicine, Software, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORGSIG due to the lack of reliable independent sources. The only source covering the company is GlobeNewswire, and its article has numerous issues and reads like an advertorial. The content is filled with "peacock-like" language and cites the company itself as a source. — Staniulis^TALK 08:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not finding any significant coverage of the company or its product. Available material is largely promotional.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too much self sourced material which does not establish notability and fails to be independent. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Should be deleted because it lacks independent, reliable sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia guidelines. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing found in support of retaining this article here. Ran a WP:BEFORE but hope of finding WP:SIGCOV effectively truncated by the abysmal search result. Patre23 (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

!vote From an initial review, there appears to be a lack of secondary sources. However, the company is - in my view - notable. It is described in 2006 as "the United Kingdom's largest independent jeweller" in a Nominet ruling. It is described as a national jewellery retailer in a more recent 2023 legal judgment. It's last statutory accounts show a revenue of over £100m per year. I will attempt to complete a more thorough review of secondary sources to support notability. Salicia7 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails as per WP:NSPORTS. While he has appeared more than 80 times for a club at a professional level, and it is backed by two notable sources, there is simply nothing else that would suggest that this player is 'relevant' enough for an article. KrystalInfernus (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• And where did you look for sources for this 1910s footballer? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep The nominator makes the keep case themselves. This person "played for a club at a professional level" and the article is "backed by two notable sources". What more do you want, especially as this player pre-dates the internet age by many decades? Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I consider this a bad faith nomination, the player won the Second division with Notts County in the 1913–14 Football League, I bet there are old newspaper archives that can help. WP:OFFLINESOURCES. Probably mentioned in a few Notts history books. I also suspect he may have served in WW1, there is probably more to find. Govvy (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 01:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - nearly 100 appearances for one of the most pre-eminent teams in English football, in an era when the internet did not exist. WP:COMMONSENSE apples. GiantSnowman 01:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. WP:NFOOTBALL was scrapped in 2022 and all Keeps using it as a reason to keep should be ignored by the closer. I did an actual search in the BNA archives and found no sigcov for Richard/Dick Allsebrook. Dougal18 (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—"Two notable sources" is enough, especially given the WP:COMMONSENSE of the context. Anwegmann (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The book is just stats so it isn't enough even if the Athletic Times article is sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of good sources on internet. No question of notability. Meets WP:NFOOTBALL. WikiMentor01 (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS – Both sources don't give significant coverage of the player. The book is simply a compilation of player statistics while the Athletic News source is simply a listing of all the birth places, names, roles, and heights of the players. Per WP:SPORTCRIT,All sports biographies, including those of subjects meeting any criteria listed below, must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. As stated above, none of the sources cited in the article contain significant coverage of the player. Searches on the British Newspaper Archive didn’t turn up any significant coverage of the player in question. There are some results about a "Richard Allsebrook" being in two road accidents in 1930 and 1932 but I'm not certain whether or not this is the same "Richard Allsebrook". This article states that "Richard Allsebrook" was 32 years old at the time of the accident (1930) and this article states he was 37 years old at the time of the accident (1934). If those sources are to be believed, "Richard Allsebrook" was either born in 1897/1898 and not in 1892 like the article states. So either these sources are talking about a different "Richard Allsebrook" or they’re all referring to the same person and we simply have contradictory information about his birth date. Lastly, WP:NFOOTY, a WikiProject advice page, clearly states thatThe player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports), and is included below for information only as a record of the previous guidance that the Footy project came up with. Per the above, WP:NSPORTS is not met. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nearly 100 appearances for one of the most pre-eminent teams in English football, player pre-dates the internet age by many decades? per WP:NEXIST offline sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: English newspapers are extensively digitized at TNA and the British Newspaper Archive. Keep !voters can be expected to show sources for this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per the other voters I usally vote to delete these Stubs but it seems this player did more then play a dozen games with out doing something significant and the nominater himself says there are 2 reliable sources already Scooby453w (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They're both reliable sources that don't provide significant coverage of the player. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Seems like a nice chap, but not notable.

The external sources are two 20-year-old listicles that mention him in passing alongside a number of acts that don’t have their own pages, the rest are his own website/tweets/self-produced content.

No clear evidence of charting songs/awards/other significant recognition.

His most popular songs & videos never cracked 100,000 views on YouTube, with the majority below 1,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchantiophyta (talk • contribs) 02:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He went on to lead the group MJ Hibbett & the Validators. AllMusic staff written album reviews here, here, and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:MUSICBIO#1. As well as the Allmusic coverage cited above, and the references presently in the article, there's an RS critical review from the BBC here, and many hits on ProQuest such as this one. ResonantDis_tortion 23:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this company is clearly notable (the awards such as this are independent and significant) and the article is detailed and thorough. The problem here is it looks too promotional and should get an NPOV tag instead of deletion. WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Winning an award is unfortunately not significant coverage, it does not address the subject of an article significantly and in detail. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Cannot find anything about this woman other than the expected nude pictures and tabloid "journalism" detailing incredibly minor events. Does not meet WP:BIO. Previously changed to a redirect for the exact same reason, and nothing has changed since to make her more notable. Nomination for deletion since I simply do not think she's even notable enough for the redirect. CoconutOctopus talk 14:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and England. CoconutOctopus talk 14:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep: Hard to find non-tabloid coverage, this [9] and this [10] helps. The multitude of Daily Mail or Sun coverage shows public knowledge of who she is. should at least be enough for a stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, this one as well [11] Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- there is some decent coverage per @Oaktree b, but it only seems to be about a picture of her at a holocaust memorial, and a random scandal. Searching myself I can find many stories, but only about relatively minor details of her life, because she's a celebrity. She does seem to meet the general notability guideline of having coverage in multiple reliable sources, even if most of it is relatively pointless coverage of random details of her life. And she doesn't fall under "notable for only one event" because while 2 of the stories above not in tabloids are about the holocaust memorial incident, other articles are not about that. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yes, she doesn't really need a WP article any more than she needs the random newspaper articles on tiny details of her life. But if Wikipedia is a repository of all human knowledge, some of it is going to be kind of pointless knowledge, I guess. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She was on a TV show in the UK, that likely ads to the notability. Details here [12], here [13], here [14]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in Ireland here [15]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The Holocaust memorial "thing" is mentioned here [16], [17], these certainly all about her, but the event gained enough traction to show scholarly notice. That's something. Oaktree b (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm leaning delete as the article appears to fail GNG since sources only cover that the subject exchanged questionable texts with a married man and took a selfie at a Holocaust memorial which doesn't seem like significant coverage. I found a few small articles in her hometown newspaper including [18] but I still think it fails WP:BASIC, unless notability is via WP:ENTERTAINER but I don't see a case for this in the sources. I'm wondering if these same sources had different content if I'd see things differently which is why I'm not officially !voting yet. Nnev66 (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Dug up a few more [19], [20], [21]. That should be more than enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per additions here, Oaktree b. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
This was technically relisted several hours ago, but I'm noting this now as a procedural matter. Some comments above this line may actually have been added before the relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 17:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Everything is related to his claims of once seeing a UFO. A standard WP:BEFORE fails to find any other point of notability. Fails WP:BLP1E. Chetsford (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies, this should have been speedily deleted. For transparency and to avoid bookkeeping chaos, I'll defer to someone else to close this. Sorry. Chetsford (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Paranormal, Police, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of unused sources available to support notability, including [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. It just needs a {{more citations needed}} template at top, per WP:ATD. I'd say it passes WP:BLP1E. 5Q5|^✉ 12:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is Sky History (the first linked source) the same as the History Channel? If so It might not be reliable, as explained at WP:RSPHISTORY. Bonus Person (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm unclear how it passes BLP1E if every piece of the scattered coverage relates to his supposed abduction? Indeed, this was the point raised by User:Grim23 and User:LuckyLouie in the first AfD (which closed as delete and which this article seems to be a carbon copy recreation of). Chetsford (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per comments of 5Q5 Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nunn appears to be a successful professional in his field of illustration, but after a fair bit of looking I can't turn up much proper, independent sigcov. None of his three illustrated books pass a strict WP:NBOOK, though the Corbyn Colouring Book got a good number of brief mentions. I found a non-independent interview, but no proper profiles. I don't see WP:NCREATIVE or WP:GNG here. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sources are too thin for a pass at notability... He's not listed in the Getty ULAN [29], this was the only hit on the name [30], but it's an unrelated child. I don't see enough reviews/substantial reviews to pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I found - and have added into the article - a couple of sources with more WP:SIGCOV - road.cc (review of the Tour de France book) and BuzzFeed (review of the Jeremy Corbyn colouring book), both of which mention his creation of the Eats, Shoots & Leaves book cover. Taking those into account, and some of the existing sources, I'd say that there's a reasonable argument for notability now. Were the article to be kept, there is probably some copyediting to be done and trimming of less stellar or redundant sources, e.g. Daily Mail, Worldcat; I didn't want to remove sources during AfD. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No Reliable sources for the infomraton presenting in the article. Source assessment table below. WP:TOOSOON. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the coverage of the Corbyn Colouring Book qualifies this article's subject under WP:SIGCOV. CompleteAnonymity (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The subject has illustrated many books and book covers. I have so far found 3 reviews of the YA book White Horse by Yan Ge, translated by Nicky Harman, illustrated by James Nunn, all of which mention the illustrations [31], [32], [33]. I will look for more reviews of books he illustrated. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have also found and added more sources, including more reviews of The Jeremy Corbyn Colouring Book and reviews of other books he illustrated. SunloungerFrog has now also found an award for another title. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG in that his notability is related primarily to membership in T Rex. References cited mention him only in passing and primarily in that connection. Should be a redirect to the band article, and lacks sufficient notability to warrant a standalone article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 12:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per nom the sources in the article only cover currie in regards to his membership in the band or when its about his connection to Marc Bolan Scooby453w (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to T. Rex (band). This article may have been created because other non-Bolan members of T. Rex also have their own articles, but the others have more activities of note outside the band. Currie was a longtime member during the band's most massive success, but I must agree with the nominator and previous voter on how he has little outside of the band with which to build an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Untrue to say that the sources are mere mentions in passing - although all four are from Bolan/T.Rex books, they nonetheless substantially record Currie's background and career prior to joining the band. They are not quick one liners by any means. They are adequate (if similar in content to each other) and there are other examples like them e.g. The Official Marc Bolan Story by George Tremlett. (Futura 1975) or Marc Bolan:The Legendary Years by John & Shan Bramley (Gryphon 1997) Romomusicfan (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Source one is one sentence about currie having died due to tragic circumstances source 2 is a book about marc bolan and while it says it also covers the bios of other members currie isnt listed as one of them source 3 is nother book about bolan where currie has a minor mention in it (and isnt even listed in the synopsis while other members are) to sum it all about he quite literally is not mentioned in any source that's not about the band or bolan Scooby453w (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And sources 4&5? Or the above proposed 6&7?

  Granted Sources 2-5 (potentially 2-7 if Tremlett and Bramleys are added on) are all from texts about T.Rex or Bolan but they nonetheless are each of them a substantial passage (from a paragraph to a half page) detailing Currie's background and pre-Bolan career.Romomusicfan (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  i might change my vote but Ill admit im still on the fence a little though Scooby453w (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I arrived from the T rex and interesting to find this 2A00:23C8:EA12:6601:7440:9D09:8B46:CF19 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect is fine. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we please get an analysis of Romomusicfan's sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scooby453w, @Doomsdayer520, @Glane23, do you find Romomusicfan's argument or sources persuasive? @Bearian, I mean no offense, but I can't tell from your !vote if you actually looked at the sources here – could you please clarify why you think a redirect is fine? Toadspike [Talk] 09:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok by me. No offense taken. Bearian (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not persuaded that a separate article is warranted per WP:BAND. I'm still in favour of a redirect absent a biographical profile such as a book focused solely on Currie's work apart from and with T Rex, as everything published that mentions him springs primarily from and about his work with T Rex. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 12:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will stick with my vote to redirect. It is true that the cited books have some additional info on Currie's early life, but that info is not particularly notable in its own right and there is not enough significant coverage of his non-T.Rex acitivites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think people can check out some of the sources themselves and make their own decision rather than needing to find my argument persuasive. I do feel it was incorrect to characterise them as "mention him only in passing " - they are more substantial than that. Romomusicfan (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Two Sevens (via WP:PROD on 22 March 2025)

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