Knowledge (XXG)

:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Deletion Sorting
Project

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 {{Knowledge (XXG):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 {{Knowledge (XXG):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 Knowledge (XXG)'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
Scan for England related AfDs

Scan for England related Prods
Scan for England related TfDs


England

Kian Breckin (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)

Bringing this here for discussion since Draft:Kian Breckin and Draft:Kian Breckin (footballer) had been declined on multiple occasions, and the editor who created the mainspace version has some problematic creations. I feel like this needs discussion to see if Breckin is notable. Star Mississippi 20:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Akhmed Yakoob (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 or WP:NPOL, candidacy doesn't count towards NPOL, by the way, they have to be elected to the office. For GNG, the sources used are routine coverages of the racism incident, etc. No WP:SIGCOV can be identified. One of the BBC source even does not have a byline, while you might thing it's almighty BBC, but sorry, we can not rely on a news piece that lacks a byline, whether from an international news org or a local one. A WP:BEFORE was done and the nature of the sources found there does not help, they either routine coverages or run of the mill. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hirose Financial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:CORP. I tried to locate references in the UK newspapers/magazines but couldn't find any. Gheus (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

OvalX (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)

Other than routine coverage like , , there is nothing significant about this forex broker to pass WP:NCORP criteria. Gheus (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Steuart Campbell (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:BIO without independent sources. User:Namiba 16:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Evelyn Tubb (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)

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2010. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Katie Clarke (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)

Tagged for notability since 2018. Not clear whether the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

A Fête Worse Than Death (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 was able to find a single review from the Daily Mail on ProQuest and nothing else to pass WP:NBOOK. The Daily Mail is the Daily Mail and is not usable. This looks like a review but I can't tell how long it is, and even if it is that's only one source. Redirect to author Iain Aitch (his article is bad but from the sourcing I found while searching for this, is probably notable)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Bhav Singh (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:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Whole article is made up of profiles. No indication of significance. Awards are non-notable trade awards. scope_creep 11:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Ramsey Faragher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability besides a few academic sources, doesn't appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG - *maybe* you can argue that the company is relevant? But he as a person doesn't seem to be Toffeenix (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

EDGE of Existence programme (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 noticed while editing the following article, that the two overlap significantly: https://en.wikipedia.org/EDGE_species. I propose housing the EDGE methodology and the programme under one article. Oignonne (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

A. Lorne Weil (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:SIGCOV. References are passing mentions, paid for profiles and interviews. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep 19:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Felix Goddard (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, no significant coverage, just stats/routine news. GiantSnowman 19:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It’s got significant coverage from what I can see. Stop pointlessly tagging pages for deletion - becoming quite pathetic now. 2A06:5902:180C:5800:59C9:B142:4513:9C80 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Stop editing from your IP, EnglishDude. GiantSnowman 17:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Charalambos Xanthos (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)

There doesn't seem to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

SI-UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company page fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV, promotional WP:PROMO. TCBT1CSI (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Lucas Sant (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)

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. (I would draftify, but a draft already exists - which can be incubated until the subject is ready for mainspace). Paul W (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

John Gramlick (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:NBASIC. No significant coverage. C F A 💬 22:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

V/Vm Test Records (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)

Nominated by anon IP as: Non-notable record label, complete lack of sources and very little news coverage. Only two of the artists mentioned in the article mention V/Vm Test Records on their page, one of these artists is V/Vm himself. Violates WP:GNG. User:74.108.22.119. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Merge into V/Vm § V/Vm Test Records, but selectively – without independent sources, statements like V/Vm Test Records were notable for their rebellious approach should be left behind. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Matt Kean (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BANDMEMBER, notability is solely inherited by being a member of Bring Me the Horizon --- FMSky (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Matt Nicholls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BANDMEMBER, notability is solely inherited by being a member of Bring Me the Horizon ---FMSky (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep. The user who's previously deleted the article (without going through this process) cited WP:BANDMEMBER, which says: "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability."

Individual notability through WP:MUSICBIO states that musicians are notable if: · Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

The content of Nicholls' article directed about him specifically are sourced to Music Radar, Drum!, Alternative Press, Noisecreep, NME and the BBC.

· Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

Through the band he is apart of contributes to, they have had multiple number-one albums in their home country, as well as eight different UK Top 40 Hits.

· Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

Through his band that he contributes to, has multiple platinum-selling singles and albums in their home country alone, as well as Gold records in the United States as certified by the RIAA.

· Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.

Alternative Press and Noisecreep reported about his broken hand that he sustained while touring.

· Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)

Four of the albums he has worked on with his band have been on major labels such as RCA and Sony Music.

· Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

Nicholls is in a band with Oli Sykes, Jordan Fish and Lee Malia who are all prominent musicians who display their independent notability, through other collaborations, producing other works and music scoring for films.

· Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Knowledge (XXG) standards, including verifiability.

Nicholls is a prominent drummer in his genre who is well-known and has been featured on MusicRadar's list of as one of the best drummers in rock music, making him a good representation as a drummer in rock music.

· Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Note that this requires the person or band to have been the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name, and is not passed by playing as a session musician on an album whose award citation was not specifically for that person's own contributions.

He has been nominated for several Grammy's and BRIT awards, winning a BRIT award with his band for best alternative act this year.

· Has won first, second, or third place in a major music competition.

Nicholls has never been in a music competition, rendering this one of the only guidelines for independent notability he won't meet.

· Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album.

He has performed on Channel 4's (UK Broadcasting Network) Sunday Brunch, a television show, with his band.

· Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

His music has been persistently played on BBC Radio One and Kerrang! Radio for well over a decade now.

· Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.

Nicholls appeared on BBC Breakfast in October 2021, a segment he was apart of in the studio collaborating with the BBC for Children in Need.

Out of all of the independent notability guidelines, there is only ONE he fails to comply to. At the top of the section, it's said that: Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. He follows not only one, but ELEVEN of the twelve listed criteria, so therefore the article should be kept. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

He does have a few specific articles in drumming-oriented publications, but almost every accomplishment listed above was by the band, not him (or any of the other members, for that matter). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, he has achieved a lot with his band. However, let's not pretend that he isn't apart of the band. His achievements lie with the band, and the guidelines apply for not only an ensemble, but musicians in general too. That individual member still shares the same accomplishments as the band. Again, to highlight the first line of the guidelines at the top of the section: "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." Again, on an individual level, Matt Nicholls applies to ELEVEN out of the TWELVE applicable guidelines, not just one of them, regardless on whether they are with his band or not. This is like arguing that if Lars Ulrich isn't a notable drummer because all of his accomplishments are through Metallica and not his own, he just shares his achievements with other members. To add to this, Nicholls also qualifies for the composer's list as he contributes to songwriting: WP:COMPOSER "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." He is credited as a songwriter to two of Bring Me The Horizon's biggest hits such as "Throne" and "Drown". Ulrich has also co-written some of Metallica's biggest hits. Do you see what I'm getting at? This article is a must KEEP. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Joel McGregor (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)

Nothing has really changed since the last AFD - yes, he made a few sub appearances at the end of last season (totalling 217 minutes per Soccerway), but there remains no significant coverage, everything is pretty much match reports and stats sites, fails WP:GNG. No spectacular career that would justify keeping GiantSnowman 07:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Finn Ashworth (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 young player who fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 07:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Mason Rees (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 young player, fails WP:GNG, now playing in non-league and unlikely to be notable any time soon, if at all. GiantSnowman 07:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Alptekin Aydin (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)

A healthcare practitioner who runs a small business with some legal consulting on the side. Doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC nor GNG. Created by a single-purposes account, and the content leans towards pitching for business. Sources are mostly routine listings, youtube videos and website that aren't independent of the subject. Klbrain (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this guy is definitely a fraud. Seems like wikipedia was only created to push his popularity and/or boost business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.38.156 (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Jack Moore (footballer, born 2003) (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)

PROD removed by article creator, no reason given. No significant coverage, everything is pretty much match reports and stats sites, fails WP:GNG. No spectacular career that would justify keeping. GiantSnowman 20:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Once again this page is not "pretty much match reports and stats sites"!
Please check the sources and READ the article as well as sources before making false statements about another one of my pages EnglishDude98 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • It is made up of one more type of source: primary sources. In general that means sources created by himself, his family, his employer or his association - in this case, all news published by his own club are primary. They can be used, but do not provide notability for a subject. Geschichte (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Exactly - where is the significant coverage? The fact that @EnglishDude98: does not understand notability requirements remains concerning. GiantSnowman 06:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Larry Steinbachek (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)

All reliable standalone coverage on the page is about the subject's death, the only other reliable source is about a song that the subject's group made, while the rest are WP:NOTRS sources like IMDB and music fan sites. Pretty clear failure of WP:NMUSICBIO. Should be redirected to Bronski Beat. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because of similar independent notability issues. All standalone coverage of Bronski is in obituaries, while the only other sources presented are an article about his band, an unreliable fansite, and an interview which is a primary source. No independent notability here either, and should similarly be redirected to Bronski Beat because of the notability issues:
Steve Bronski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I could see an argument WP:BANDMEMBER applies here although with a band this influential I'd put my thumb on the scale for Steinbachek for other things like LGBTQ activism and film scoring. Steve Bronski is even more notable than Steinbachek because he wrote Smalltown Boy. Oblivy (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I disagree and I very much believe WP:BANDMEMBER applies. I'll admit that maybe saying that the obituaries are about their deaths rather than celebrations of their lives was unduly harsh, but the pieces objectively only exist because their subjects passed away. I'm not finding virtually anything in reliable sourcing regarding Steinbachek's activism or film score work, and Bronski does not inherit notability from being one of three co-writers on a song that was a top 3 hit in the U.K. and a top 50 hit in the U.S. If you want to find sources that solely focus on the subjects that that meet WP:V and WP:RS and add them to the article, go for it -- I might even walk this back if you can find enough, but for now outside of their passings I just don't think there's enough coverage of either of them for their standalone articles to quite meet WP:NMUSIC. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
The idea that major news-outlet obituaries "only exist because their subjects pass away" is more than a wee bit reductive. Yes, they are occasioned by the death, but they are written because the person was notable. Oblivy (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Just because an obituary was published by a reliable source does not automatically make the subject independently notable by Knowledge (XXG) standards -- to prove my point, I will direct you to two deletion discussions about deceased musicians, WP:Articles for deletion/Koopsta Knicca and WP:Articles for deletion/Lil Phat, both from this year (the former actually started by me, not entirely coincidentally). In both cases, despite there being tributes written by sources that pass WP:RS (including here and here, respectively), there was consensus at both discussions that there was not enough coverage of these artists for the purposes of standalone articles outside of their deaths, with the former article being redirected to the notable group he was a member of, and the latter being redirected to a U.S. top 10 hit he appeared on and had a co-writing credit for. Personally, I feel that Steinbachek and Bronski are in the exact same boat, more or less -- just because they were members of an unquestionably notable group whose music charted and went platinum in various nations does not mean they individually pass WP:NMUSICBIO, since notability is not inherited and outside of them dying the sourcing in both articles does not appear to establish it outside of the context of the group. I'm not trying to persuade you to change your vote or anything, but I really don't see enough in either article that couldn't just be included in the Bronski Beat article. JeffSpaceman (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
There is, of course, nothing to prevent a band member from being notable despite not meeting the criteria set forward at WP:BANDMEMBER. I wasn't suggesting an obituary means a person meets WP:N, but at the same time an obituary is certainly an opportunity taken by the press to significantly cover someone's life and there is generally ZERO relationship between the notability of their death and the notability of their life. Oblivy (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Maddi Wilde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this footballer to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. A few transactional announcements (2023, 2024), but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    Keep: I originally reviewed this article and passed it because a brief search for sources I did found 1 2 plus the articles listed in the nomination, all of which are secondary sourced articles about her, and include more than trivial content. Some of them are based around transfer announcements, but they all contain more than a passing mention with content such as quotes and information about her as a player. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    The routine transactional announcements have two sentences of coverage each, with the rest being quotes. Every mention of Wilde in the OneFootball article is a re-hashing of something she said while the WSLFullTime article is another routine transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if I'm missing a WP:NSPORTS policy here but what is the policy that says articles about transactions don't count towards coverage? I would also dispute the characterization of the OneFootball article. It's an article focusing on coverage of things she said and her performance on the field as well as her relation to the team, she is the primary subject of the article; I can't really see anything that wouldn't make it WP:SIGCOV. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Quotes from the subject are not significant coverage. We want to see what other people say about Wilde, not what she says about herself and her team. Spiderone 18:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sourcing is nowhere close to the IRS SIGCOV required by NSPORT. The OneFootball article has zero secondary independent coverage of Wilde: every single sentence is either reporting what she said or is about something other than her. And on top of that it's also a reprint of a FAWSL piece, so it and the routine transactional announcement count as ONE source of non-GNG coverage. Not to mention that FAWSL appears to be SPS -- it's essentially a blog written and edited by one person, and such sources can NEVER be cited in BLPs. So in effect we have no RS coverage at all. JoelleJay (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per JoelleJay, not much else to add. Note that Wilde is young and may become notable in the future so no prejudice against creating again should she gain some significant coverage. Spiderone 16:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
PensionBee (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)

Unlikely to meet NCORP; no reliable sources The editing spirit (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

List of entertainment events at Liverpool Arena (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:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. mikeblas (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

List of entertainment events at the O2 Arena (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:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Weakly stated inclusion criteria does not match title. mikeblas (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was Draftify‎. Eddie891 Work 19:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Adrien Thibaut (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)

PROD removed by article creator, no reason given. Ni significant coverage, everything is pretty much match reports and stats sites, fails WP:GNG. No spectacular career that would justify keeping. GiantSnowman 17:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 14:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Cornwall College Students' Union (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 non-notable student organisation for small regional college. No references, no attempt to improve despite being tagged for over ten years. Suggest deletion with merger into The Cornwall College Group of anything still considered of value. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Recreated and deleted countless times, was recreated by a indefinitely blocked editor with the edit summary "the day wikipedia admins decide not to be DUMB, this will be allowed as an article." Still lacking secondary sources. No indication of in-depth secondary source coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only prior AfD for this was almost 19 years ago. Since then, it was correctly deleted several times under WP:G4, and a few more times under speedy criteria that are no longer used. By itself, "previously deleted" is no longer a valid reason to delete the page. We need consensus based on source assessment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Rachel Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP with no secondary sourcing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions. Book is notable and notability is not inherited. scope_creep 21:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not consensus. The author must be standalone notable as well. I've never seen that statement at Afd in more than 10 years. They are many many famous books where the author is virtually unknown, even in the modern period. They don't like the limelight, don't give interviews or readings or go to conferences or conventions. They are unknown and by any defintion they would fail WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep 10:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:NAUTHOR has wide consensus and has been stable for years. It reads:

This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if he person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series).

The subject of this article has written a significant work, Sins of the Shovel: Looting, Murder, and the Evolution of American Archaeology, which has been the subject of at least six independent reviews in periodicals (cited in the article). Hence, they meet WP:NAUTHOR.
I alluded to the logic behind this above: if we can write an article on a book, we can write an article on its author – even if the content is just John Smith is the author of Notable Book, a . Whether to call this article "John Smith" or "Notable Book" barely affects the content and is a question of article titling and framing rather than notability or deletion. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I know what it reads and what it means. I've done 100's of book and author Afd's, over the years. I'm acutely aware of the policy. They are one of the most common article types that gets sent to Afd. The author must be notable on their own to have the article. Notability is not inherited. That is long-establised consensus. I could point to 1000's Afd's where the statement has been made, following established policy. The book is certainly notable, but the author isn't yet. You just have to look at how the industry is structured. If you followed They must be standalone notable. List of books review. By your logic every self-published author would have have an article on here. scope_creep 11:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
@Scope creep, I think you're right about the outcome of AfDs, but I don't think that's an accurate conclusion about Joe's logic. Those self-published authors rarely get book reviews in reliable sources that would count for notability. Frankly, I think Joe's logic is perfectly correct (what does it matter if the article on a book is at the author's name or the book's title?), but it would be a really eccentric outcome for an AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I think it would be strange outcome. I don't know what has changed in the 6 months-odd interim where I wasn't doing Afd. scope_creep 12:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
It's quite a common outcome for academics, at least. A common objection to WP:NPROF is that it lets us have articles on people for whom there could be little or no biographical sources available. Which is true, but following the logic above it just means that the notable entity is John Smith's work not John Smith. But actually calling the article that would be dumb, so we don't do it. – Joe (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Odd that this long-established consensus followed in hundred of AfDs isn't written down anywhere, then, and that the notability guideline for authors explicitly contradicts it. – Joe (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
If you can find a handful of AfDs (or even one, honestly) for authors that have been kept on the grounds that an author has a single book with multiple reviews, I'd be very interested to see them. -- (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
asilvering, no specific AFD comes to mind right now but after closing hundreds (thousands?) of these discussions over the past 4 1/2 years, I'm sure that this has happened. There are authors, like Harper Lee, who, throughout most of her life, was notable for writing only onw book but it was a highly notable one. Also, many AFDs are sparsely attended and if there is a strong consensus that the book is notable and the reviews are prestigious, then it's likely that the article will be Kept. Liz 19:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Sure, Harper Lee is a good index case. I've used that exact example before when explaining to AfC submitters what kind of coverage one might need to be notable on a single book. (Though, obviously, she's rather extremely notable, so it's not exactly fair. Someone half as famous as Harper Lee is still going to pass any kind of AfD with flying colours.) This is an early career archaeologist with a well-reviewed book. They're very much not in the same league. -- asilvering (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I think that WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E are the relevant standards. For example, Harper Lee has been covered enough to not be a low-profile individual, and her relationship with the book is well-documented and substantial, even though she was for a long time covered only in the context of the one book. Also, the To Kill A Mockingbird is such a significant book that it is worthwhile covering both author and book. None of the reasons to cover Harper Lee apply here, at least so far as I can see. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I suspect the point of disagreement comes down to the interpretation of significant or well-known work in WP:NAUTHOR. Some seem to (reasonably) interpret that as meaning a work of literary significance, as with Harper Lee. For me, it is closer to the "significant" of WP:SIGCOV – just something that has been the subject of detailed coverage in independent reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't have the time to do so, but I think if you looked back through Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators/archive 2 you would find many. – Joe (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I tend to watch that delsort list pretty closely (as does David Eppstein, who below calls the redirect to book "our standard outcome") and I can't recall any, which is why I'm asking. -- asilvering (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the book, our standard outcome for authors of only one book but one that is arguably notable. And while we're at it refocus the article on the book to say something about the book based on its published reviews instead of merely being a rehash of the author's back cover blurb, sourced only to that blurb. As for the argument above over whether authoring one book should be enough for the author to also be notable: see WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @David Eppstein: I knew the secret sauce was there somewhere. This settles it. scope_creep 14:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Is a book an 'event'? – Joe (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. I find the suggestion that a book is notable but not the author bizarre outside of the exceptional cases that scope creep describes (e.g., ghostwriting cases), but I can't see that here; Morgan is happy to appear on scholarly podcasts, blog about careers, write for popular magazines, etc. She's also listed in various places for her contribution to particular digs etc., so she's hardly unknown. And remember that this is a particularly widely reviewed book. Not many academics or first-time authors can boast a lengthy review in the New York Times. WP:AUTHOR does not say (as pointed out) that multiple books are required, and WP:1E doesn't apply, as no one is claiming that Morgan is notable for her role in some event (e.g., for an archeologist, a particular discovery); the claim is that she's notable for her creative output. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per the above discussion of the 'unorthodox' creation of the book article, we literally cannot delete this article. If the consensus is to go with the (bizarre, in my view) 'book not author' approach, a history merge would be necessary. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the book. Notability is not WP:INHERITED. A book can be notable but that does not, in fact, imply its author is notabble for a page. For that we would need multiple reliable independent secondary sources, with significant coverage in each, of the author. That has not been shown to exist and I don't see it in searches, so redirect will serve the reader best. Searching on the author will then take the reader to their notable work, which includes some author biography. (Not much at present). Note that a redirect preserves page history, which should allay Josh Milburn's concerns above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keeping the article or Redirecting this page title to the article on their book.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Deadbeat Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable film studio, as its IMDb entry clearly shows. Tellingly, none of the cited sources even mention the studio. Additionally, notability is not inherited from films that the studio happened to be involved in. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete : Per nominator's reason. Came across the page and had to make my own find out. The notable movies never claimed in any reliable source that Deadbeat Films was their movie studio production. Maybe reason why it was not even listed on the IMDB platform. So many unreliable source which also fails WP:GNG of the subject article.--Gabriel (……?) 22:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
    Hey, I'm an intern working for the studio itself. As per my other comment, I apologize about the source misinformation. I'm doing my best to improve it, but I'm still incredibly new to this internship and even Knowledge (XXG) editing itself. I request more time for it to get fixed up. We're all very busy, so it will take some time, but it will be improved. If anything, some tips on how to improve it would be fantastic. Thanks! MNLewis21 (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I'm an intern working for the studio itself. It's just smaller than what we're used to and it's in England. I'm not entirely sure where you live, but I definitely think it's more Indie British than anything Well Known American. I've just been hired on, and I believe part of my job is to freshen up and work on the various Knowledge (XXG) pages for the studio, its films, and its employees. Another intern started what I'm working on right now. It's a bunch of busy people on board and just needs its due time to cook in the oven. Thanks! MNLewis21 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Okay. Can you further explain more about your internal team and their works towards Knowledge (XXG) they intend to get started on. You mentioned some of your colleagues has started what you were currently working on. Can you as well list those draft. That will help. Also is the current article creator of the “Deadbeat Films” part of your internal team. Things needs to be clearer. Gabriel (……?) 19:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
To be honest I'm not entirely sure, unfortunately. I believe the one who initially wrote and researched the articles relating to the studio and its employees has left the company since they were also an intern, but I can't quite confirm that. I've been keeping in touch with my employer Brook Driver, a creative director and screenwriter for the studio, about the articles' status and the advice I'm receiving (thank you very much, by the way). They're still trying to kickstart getting their online presence more well known and complete. As for drafts within the studio itself I don't have access to that just yet. MNLewis21 (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I was the one that created the initial Knowledge (XXG) article for Deadbeat Films. I was an intern under Brook Driver at the time and designed this page. The creation of the page was done for no compensation and was based upon research of my own in an attempt to avoid biases and to follow the terms and rules of Knowledge (XXG). I do acknowledge though that this was the first page I had ever created, so any issues present are all my own. I am willing to assist in any way I can in fixing the page if possible. I do believe that the company does meet the standards of having a Knowledge (XXG) page, especially when looking at pages for other previously released independent films. This article from TheGuardian directly talks about their recent film Swede Caroline and namedrops Brook Driver specifically: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/apr/17/swede-caroline-review-marrow-mockumentary-is-gourd-for-a-laugh This article from Little Black Book specifically discusses the merging of Deadbeat Films with Toma Productions (Direct connection to The Devil's Harmony): https://lbbonline.com/news/deadbeat-films-appoints-anthony-toma-as-head-of-production CFORMAN12 (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
The official Swede Caroline poster also does feature the Deadbeat Films logo on it: https://www.swedecaroline.com/synopsis/ CFORMAN12 (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Those sources fail to demonstrate the notability of the studio. The Guardian source is a film review, not a company profile, and doesn't mention "Deadbeat Films" anywhere. As I stated in the AfD nomination, the studio doesn't gain notability from its people or products. Unless I'm mistaken, the LLB source looks like a press release. And the film website is, similarly, not an independent source. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 17:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
On the note of communication with Brook himself: I'm in America and he is in England, so the time zones have a large gap in between them. We are doing our best to communicate in a timely manner despite this hurdle. MNLewis21 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have one COI editor who I think we can view as an unbolded Keep, Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 21:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Matthew Ellis (police commissioner) (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)

Local elected officials are not notable through WP:NPOL, the one source listed is a run of the mill election report, which does not contribute to the subject passing WP:GNG. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

PCCs (including this one) have received significant press coverage, albeit often on a local level. A police constituency can cover a population of several hundred thousand, or even into the millions. Indeed, the population of the Staffordshire area is around 1.146 million. Compare that to a Member of Parliament, whose constituency contains roughly 76,000 people, and a London Assembly member, whose constituency covers less than a million. Consequently it is a notable post, and the holder of it is likely to attract ongoing media attention, thus making them notable. As I have said previously, the consensus at the time these offices were created was that they were notable in the same way we create articles for every MP, MSP, Member of the Senedd and so on. I've also suggested that perhaps what is needed is a wider debate on how we deal with articles about people who hold these posts. This is Paul (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
There's nothing in NPOL that covers police and crime commissioners. AusLondonder (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
It's something we should address though because these articles get nominated for AfD from time to time, and there's no clear guidelines for them. While they're not at the level of MPs they're also not at the level of local councillors. This is Paul (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • delete per WP:OFFICEHOLDER. A police commissioner at this level is unlikely to attract coverage beyond routine spokesbeing reporting, and there's no claim of that in the article. Possibly he could be redirected to the list of officeholders if must but personally I'm not inclined to take AtD as a requirement. Mangoe (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Looking at sources, which ones provide SIGCOV?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 21:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Steve Tappin (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 subject appears to be a non-notable individual, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. Most of the sources cited in the article and on the talk page are passing mentions, interviews, primary, routine coverage, or hearsay, none of which provide in-depth coverage. The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, off-wiki evidence suggests potential undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry. GSS  13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

In addition WP:BASIC states that “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;” Tappin has over 40 articles online as you can also see some posted in the tal page. Also the following article is in depth:
Finally, as per WP:ENT he would qualify because he was the host of BBC TV show CEO GURU for a long time - over two years - and has been on at least 30 episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzsoth (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources presented above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris 05:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Jennie (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not inherently notable, happy to merge with Steve Darling. Bringing to AFD as I'm not sure if I'm missing something that makes this notable enough for it's own article. Lordseriouspig 07:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)


"She is not the first guide dog to serve in Westminster, as House of Lords members Baron Blunkett and Baron Holmes of Richmond also use guide dogs in the chamber."

where is the wiki page for themTravelrisk (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete - Agreed with the above that there is nothing to show that she has any notability of her own, independent of her owner, and as all of the main points are covered already in Steve Darling's article, there is no need for a merge. I have no objections to having it Redirect to Steve Darling as well, if others think that would be useful. Rorshacma (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Without more support for Keep, the options here are Deletion or Merger. Let's give this discussion a few more days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Jeremy Curl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
AfDs for this article:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a lot of content was added to this article after its nomination. Could editors review the additions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Healthera (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 does not provide sufficient independent, reliable sources that prove the company's notability according to Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines. Loewstisch (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

List of Royal Yacht Squadron members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NLIST. Might be WP:A3 eligible. Conyo14 (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 19:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Merge the full content (ie, before it was disruptively removed, eg ), to Royal Yacht Squadron. Each individual item on the list should be checked to see if their inclusion is supported by the content of their own biographical articles, but there's no reason to delete this list and no reason to remove the list of names wholesale without checking individual ones. -- asilvering (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Big Church Festival (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 boldy merged this article over a year ago, but just noticed that my redirect was reverted in October. This festival fails WP:NCONCERT/WP:NCORP (which I think applies because this is a non-profit festival, i.e., an organization that puts on an event once a year). I have been unable to find sustained, in-depth coverage of the festival. As there is still merged content in Christian music festival#Worldwide, I propose restoring the redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant is a personal opinion not a notability factor and promotionalism can be edited out, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
This editor frequently argues an article is relevant or irrelevant, I'm not sure what that means. Liz 07:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Weak Keep: Looks irrelevant and not sure about the notability of the subject.Santoshsah4 (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by ooks irrelevant? If you're not sure about the notability of the subject, why do you think this article should be kept? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @Santoshsah4. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Insillaciv (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Alexis Strum (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 the sources here meet WP:NBASIC or WP:NM, save for a writing credit on Why Not Us, which is rather weak on its own. Consult the table of relevant sources in the article. Nothing in my WP:before search was of higher quality.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Templeton, Tom (31 July 2005). "Introducing...Alexis Strum". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 September 2023. Yes Yes No little content outside of fluff and quotes ✘ No
Scott, Danni (5 October 2023). "'A mix-up over ice cream on Lorraine cost me my music career 20 years ago – but now I'm back'". The Metro. Retrieved 5 October 2023. ~ No WP:METRO Yes ✘ No
Strum, Alexis (23 July 2023). "I'm finally the pop star I dreamed of becoming – and I'm in my forties". The Independent. Retrieved 2 September 2023. No written by Strum ~ Yes ✘ No
Krieger, Candice (3 March 2011). "Alexis Strum lands a starring role at your fingertips". The Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved 2 September 2023. Yes Yes No Short article from when watching TV on phones was novel, with a few sentences of background on Strum at the end. ✘ No
Glanvill, Natalie (17 June 2015). "Kylie Minogue Songwriter to stage Homeland meets Loose Women play". Guardian Series. Retrieved 2 September 2023. No Mostly quotes or other stuff obviously sourced to Strum ? ~ ✘ No
"Comic documentary about failure in development". British Comedy Guide. 15 October 2018. Retrieved 2 September 2023. No mostly quotes from Strum ~ Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Mach61 04:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Did a teeny bit more searching, noting small amount of coverage here. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with the nomination for deletion.
Strum has co-written two songs on popular 00s albums - Come and Get it by Rachel Stevens and Still Standing by Kylie Minogue in addition to the single, Why Not Us? by Monrose.
Under Notability (music), Strum therefore qualifies under the criteria:
'Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.'
In addition, Strum is eligible for inclusion under the criteria as a performer:
'Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.'
'Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).' ('Addicted' was released by Warner Bros. major label release - https://open.spotify.com/artist/49DJil4JyZdW8Upoilkfom?si=uoQw-rvcTSOKuvGOyykJkw - her second album 'Cocoon' was also a major label recording, which was shelved and has now been released and distributed on an 'independent label with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable - https://open.spotify.com/album/7vNUTEQtnCVWel68cxx5sC?si=fMuK_Zl5Q1mgtyt1TSqOAQ and https://hmv.com/store/music/cd/cocoon)
Her listing is incomplete, but she is featured on the UK Official Charts Company website: https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/alexis-strum/
In addition, she has released two albums as a recording artist, which are widely available on all streaming platforms, with 8.3k monthly streams on Spotify.
She is also eligible for inclusion under:
'Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).'
Go My Own Way was the theme tune to the 'network television show' Vital Signs (TV Show) in the UK, which aired on ITV, starring Tamzin Outhwaite.
She is also eligible for inclusion under:
'Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.'
The music video for Bad Haircut featured Tom Ellis and was aired on The Box and MTV Hits, and has over 100,000 views on YoUTube.
She is also eligible for inclusion under:
'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.'
The album 'Cocoon' has received a large amount of press attention since its initial planned release in 2006:

- https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/music/alexis-strum---cocoon-mercury-1024671 - https://retropopmagazine.com/alexis-strum-cocoon-album-review/

Strum's music career has also been the feature of multiple, non-trivial, published works, as well as being mentioned in articles where she has been listed as a musical performer, worthy of note:

- https://metro.co.uk/2023/10/04/lorraine-mix-up-destroyed-alexis-strums-career-for-20-years-19596176/ - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl7ld1glk3o - https://www.aol.com/clean-bandit-were-told-stop-233558500.html?guccounter=1 - https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/pop-star-music-alexis-strum-album-b2380472.html - https://player.winamp.com/podcasts/womans-hour-podcast-e59d55dc59 - https://www.theguardian.com/music/2005/aug/23/popandrock - https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/festival-finalises-acts-for-v-line-up-12712 - https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/13337233.kylie-minogue-songwriter-stage-homeland-meets-loose-women-play/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevebritney (talk • contribs) 13:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep as well as the above mentioned sources such as The Guardian and the Metro (not convinced it is completely unreliable as the discussion was not clear-cut at RSN) there is also a staff written bio at AllMusic here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I've just gone through the RSN discussion links for the Metro and Im not finding any substantial discussion directly about it so unless Im missing a discussion it seems to have been quite a leap to list it as unreliable without a proper discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris 10:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep - In its current state, the article needs to be cleaned up so it is less reliant on unreliable/insignificant sources, but it could then be expanded with info from the sources found in the discussion above. There's enough out there in solid sources like the Guardian and the BBC to at least support a stub article, maybe with more focus on her songwriting success. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑