Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England - Wikipedia


Article Images

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.

Chelsea White (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 with no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1899–1900 Staffordshire Senior Cup (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)

Individual season for local league, fails WP:GNG, WP:N, and WP:FOOTBALL, no significant coverage and nothing remarkable that merits inclusion of this particular season in comparison with other seasons which don't have articles Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Bakeries (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 cites 2 sources, both of which are trival. One is just a directory listing on the website of the town the company was located in, and the other is a single news article about a single incident of purely local interest. A google search for the company name results in nothing relevant except some AI generated content that appears to be drawn from this article and a couple seemingly-defunct directory listings. The company's website fails DNS. The company fails notability now, and since it doesn't appear to be in business any more the chances of it satisfying the notability criteria in the future seem slim. I'm normally an inclusionist kinda guy but I think we can do without this one. -- LWG talk 23:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Middlebrook (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)

Recreation of page that has been twice deleted in two prior AfD discussions, the most recent in 2021. It doesn't appear that very much has changed. There is a 2024 podcast type interview, but this does not appear to me to contribute much to notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.
The article adheres to the guidelines for biographies of living persons, and is based on verifiable information and maintains a neutral point of view. I also disagree with the editors regarding the dismissal of certain sources, such as The National (Abu Dhabi). While it may have bias in political matters related to the UAE, this does not extend to its coverage of individuals.

The criterion for notability is clearly defined in various sources. For instance, this excerpt aligns well with Wikipedia's notability criteria:

"Dr. Peter J. Middlebrook is a leading international economist specializing in emerging and frontier markets. His work has been featured in BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN, Time Magazine, the Financial Times, and MENA regional news. He led the technical development of the proposed Arab Stabilization Plan and has played a key role in the development of the New Silk Road for the US Government."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.148.242 (talk) 20:28, October 9, 2024 (UTC)

Amber Beattie (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)

Found no news articles on her. Only reliable mentions online are passing mentions from books about her role in the boy in the striped pajamas. Only sources this article had beforehand were Twitter and LinkedIn. Roasted (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Kent Senior Cup (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)

Individual season for non-league county football tournament, fails WP:GNG and no significant coverage Pkbwcgs (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1894–95 Kent Football League (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 individual season for local league, fails WP:GNG Pkbwcgs (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sleaford, Newark-on-Trent (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 is no evidence that this ward is notable. There is no evidence that a "suburb" called Sleaford exists, and it is not included in List of United Kingdom locations: Si-Sm#Sl. There are several references which appear to be fascinating books about the history of Newark's elections, but which do not appear to mention Sleaford ward. All I can find is that it exists as a ward electing one councillor to Newark Town Council. As explained in the rather confusing "Geography" section, it is not a ward for elections to the next level of government, Newark and Sherwood District: see 2023 Newark and Sherwood District Council election. There seems to be no accessible map showing the boundary of this ward. (The geog coords given lead to Bede House Lane, postcode NG24 1PY, which Mapit.com puts as being in Beacon ward for district council elections, but unfortunately Mapit.com does not mention wards at town council level).

As far as I can see, all we can verifiably say about "Seaford, Newark" is that is a ward electing one councilor to Newark Town Council, being one of 7 wards. That is not enough for a Wikipedia article.

The article Newark-on-Trent#Governance mentions the town council, stating that it has 18 councillors elected from 4 wards, with a reference to an archived 2011 source showing 5 wards. I suggest that paragraph should be updated to reflect the current situation, where there are 7 wards, perhaps showing the number of councillors per ward (ranges from 1 to 5), and that Sleaford, Newark-on-Trent (and probably the other wards) should redirect there. PamD 07:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK WP:SOFIXIT: I've updated the information about Newark Town Council (which was a red link until a few minutes ago) in Newark-on-Trent#Governance. PamD 07:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If this article survives, either as an article or a redirect, it needs to be added to Sleaford_(disambiguation). PamD 07:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I now see that the map referenced at currently ref 5, when zoomed in, shows the boundary of the ward, which appears to be the southern corner of the Bridge district council ward. But I doubt that even this is enough for an article. PamD 08:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vitthal Ramji Shinde (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)

Promotional. The references don't add to the notability Gauravs 51 (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Frankel (financier) (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 as there is no significant coverage. There are mentions and plenty of interviews and him giving advice, but nothing in-depth about him that is reliable. There are references such as this in Inc.com, but when you look closer you can see this is a contributor submitted piece with no editorial oversight, similar to others out there. I would recommend a redirect to ff Venture Capital but that was recently tagged for notability by another editor. CNMall41 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester bus route 263 (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)

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Manchester bus route 8 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 7 (2nd nomination), bus routes are not inherently notable, fails GNG. Bundling the following articles that are recently created with similar notability status.

George Street tram stop (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)

Train stations are not automatically notable and need to meet WP:GNG. This individual tram stop which is simply a raised piece of concrete where trams stop does not meet WP:GNG. Both sources are primary and do not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, tricky one. I agree that "a raised piece of concrete" appears not to be notable. However I see from the Tramlink article that every stop on the system has a blue link. Are we proposing to delete all of these? I would also imagine that there are many railway stations (or "halts") around the world which have minimal infrastructure, but nevertheless have their own article. To give an example, the tram stops listed in List of Manx Electric Railway stations each have their own article, despite having minimal infrastructure and much less traffic than the Croydon Tramlink (and the Manx rolling stock being more flimsy than that in Croydon). Ehrenkater (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. If you find other non-notable articles, please nominate them for deletion. Please assess this AfD on its own merits. If this AfD results in a consensus to delete/redirect then we can do that for other non-notable Croydon stops. AusLondonder (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Manx Electric Railway has been around a century longer than Tramlink, so there are plenty of books about the history of the system that are used as sources in the articles about it. I suspect it'll take a few more decades for Tramlink to be in that situation... Adam Sampson (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you should be voting for Merge or Redirect (and you can do so with the stated intent of pending the result of that other discussion), not vote Keep without actually presenting a Keep argument for notability of the subject matter. SilverserenC 23:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Hopefully closing admin will disregard keep votes without valid rationale. The clear community-wide consensus is that rail infrastructure must meet GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I should not be !voting for something different to what I believe to be the best outcome for readers of the encyclopaedia: That keeping these articles in their present state until the outcome of such a discussion concludes how best to present information on this set of closely related subjects. Recommending merge or redirect implies a preference for redirection or merging somewhere now and then possibly demerged or merged elsewhere after the discussion concludes. That would be significantly more disruptive for everyone, possibly more work for editors, and bring no benefits to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any indication of notability from available sources. I hope someone can present some at some point, but none are evident currently. The closer should remember that AfD discussions are about determining notability of a subject matter and not about discussions of Merging or Redirecting (though those can be outcomes of AfD discussions). Thus, any Keep votes that don't make an actual argument of notability on policy grounds needs be disregarded when determining the outcome of the AfD. SilverserenC 23:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. It's a plausible search term so deletion should be off the table and I'm disappointed to see this here rather than a broader discussion about these articles as a group. Nonetheless, although the system is clearly notable and some stops on it may be, the majority do not appear to have significant third-party coverage so a list of stops is preferable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck my comment. Based on the discussion with the nominator below, it is clear that this is a bad-faith nomination in an attempt to "win" an argument elsewhere and not one genuinely concerned with assessing the notability (or otherwise) of the subject. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the article on the broader system. Does not appear notable on its own. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now Coverage wise there is some from this book about the tram system Croydon Tramlink.
It is likely not enough for straight GNG pass, but I'm voting keeping mainly as I agree with the other keep voters that removing a single article with no plans on how to deal with the rest of the system causes more problems than it solves, as it ends up no one does the work of cleaning up the other articles and we have a navigational & consistency gap. I note that a bundled AfD does not have to be a "review every station or do nothing", it is perfectly fine to evaluate sections of the system at a time (looking at the map, one good starting "set" could be the stations from Lloyd Park to New Addington). If I was voting on a bundled AfD I would of voted to make a listicle instead of keeping.
That aside, if one of the delete !voters volunteers to complete the job of evaluating the rest of the stations and making changes as needed then feel free to automatically convert my vote to Merge to List of Tramlink stops (with redirect to Tramlink as interm target) Jumpytoo Talk 01:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have to start somewhere. We can't keep saying "yes, I know it fails every notability requirement but keep because we have hundreds of other articles that also fail those requirements". That's not a serious argument. AusLondonder (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder so let's have a discussion about the articles as a group. I agree with you that it's likely we'll end up merging/redurecting the majority of them but surely it makes more sense to do it from one central discussion than relitigating the same question 39 times? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't do a group nomination because those often become unmanageable disasters. I was also keeping in mind that at Wikipedia talk:Notability several editors have claimed that some tram stops may be notable and that each team stop should be assessed individually. AusLondonder (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like circular reasoning to me (something you've been quick to accuse others of), and a deliberate misrepresentation of what has actually been said at WT:N. That's very disappointing. I was hoping for a good-faith discussion that would critically evaluate these articles and that the result would be apparent from that evaluation, not for a discussion where one editor tries to force through their preferred decision based on a subjective opinion of importance. I guess I'll go and start that discussion somewhere and follow it where it leads; I want no further part of this AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid argument, per WP:OSE: It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point and In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items. If you want to pierce the argument I am currently making, there needs to at the very least a promise to do such evaluation to show that what OSE allows is not the case. Jumpytoo Talk 17:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE is an essay. It has exactly zero policy weight in any deletion discussion. Especially when you ignore the entire rest of the OSE section to cherry-pick something that has little relevance to what is being discussed. We are explicitly not discussing something that has clear notability for the vast majority of members. That is specifically something that has not been showcased or presented in any manner. In fact, the notability of really any tram stop has not been presented, let alone the majority of them. SilverserenC 18:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This AfD is for this particular topic's suitability as a standalone. Local consensuses at wikiprojects do not override P&Gs, and the broader question of "how to treat the Croydon Tramlink stops" is totally irrelevant to whether this stop meets notability guidelines. Any pseudo-navigational purpose of this article is fulfilled with a redirect to Tramlink#Routes so it doesn't even sound like a "discussion" about Croydon Tramlink stops would offer a single reason to retain any of these articles anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is simply a raised piece of concrete where trams stop is harsh and uncollaborative. Cremastra (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry the feelings of the poor defenseless tram stop were so hurt by calling it what it is. But perhaps considering things a little more impersonally would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shibu Chacko (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)

Chacko's claim to notability is that he was one of the 399 people who received a MBE in 2019, the lowest grade of all five Order of the British Empire awards that were given to a total of 1,073 people in the same year. He received some coverage for that by some newspapers in 2019, but the coverage was not WP:SUSTAINED.

Clearly, this is not the type of award that makes someone notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, and I doubt that all other 1,072 mostly ordinary British citizens (list) who received the same general-purpose award or better in the same year are also notable. Badbluebus (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, India, and United Kingdom. Badbluebus (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kerala and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Little sign of SNGs. As far as GNG, there is some press coverage, all around the MBE. While some of it goes into a bit of detail, I think this still falls under WP:BLP1E. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that the article originator has been blocked for sock puppetry. Enough other editors have worked on the article that I think it's a little unlikely that it qualifies for G5 speedy deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete with a little regret. Subject has clearly done good work encouraging people to sign up as organ donors, but the only coverage which profiles him is triggered by the award of an MBE, mainly in local, trade and community press/media, which routinely mines the awards for anyone in their locality/trade/community. We don't have independent coverage before or since, which we normally see for notable persons ("notable" in the Wikipedia sense). The MBE itself can't confer notability automatically; as noted above, it's the lowest state honour in the UK, and it is also the commonest, with 9,518 awards from December 2014 to June 2024 (total of "All - Including Unknown" for MBEs in downloadable spreadsheet). Personally, I thank Shibu Chacko for their achievement and hope this will later seem merely the start of a long and fruitful career. NebY (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Standing for Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, MBE is the third highest ranking Order of the British Empire level (excluding a knighthood/damehood), behind CBE and then OBE. Not the lowest state of Honour in the UK as claimed in this section. See reference below
    https://www.thegazette.co.uk/awards-and-accreditation/content/103372 Shinomol (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the third highest out of three. The lowest. As shown on the Gazette page you linked. Your assertion that Not the lowest state of Honour in the UK (sic) is contrary to the very source you just provided. All this is doing is reinforcing the point that this person does not as yet meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. You have convinced me that there'll be no point in my spending more time on this. NebY (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest you do your research first before making false claims. BEM is the lowest rank, not MBE . Sorry this is my last message to your malicious attempts to take this page down. I am not willing to waste my valuable time by engaging with these kinds of individuals at all; I have got patients to look after. Defending this page is not my priority. Best wishes for all your continued efforts. (Malicious obviously) Shinomol (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: After analyzing the entry and reading all the references, I agree that he passes GNG. More than enough news coverage suggested above and at the article, I'm convinced the person is notable and worth keeping on Wikipedia.  I assess as probably reliable, covering multiple events / aspects of this WP:BLP. Keep, monitor for neutrality and overdetail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.200.34 (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC) — 119.155.200.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: The process for nominating someone to receive an MBE is a very complex process and can take upto 2 years. The government and the various departments will go through rigorous checking during this process. All nominees will be checked by various government departments to make sure they’re suitable for an honour. I can see Chacko has gone through this process and received the honour. He is the first South Indian in UK to receive this honor, and he is the first Indian to work as a Donor Ambassador in the UK as well. The course he created is already completed by over 9000 individuals from all over the world. So I certainly recommend keeping this page live in view of the special achievements Chacko has gained. He is true inspiration to all the South Indians in the UK in terms of professional growth in Nursing, Research, Career Guidance and inservice education. Best wishes Mr Chacko Shinomol (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC) — Shinomol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Nominating someone for an MBE is not a very complex process at all - start here. One of our sources says he "will become the youngest Malayalee ever to receive an MBE (Most Excellent Order of the British Empire) from the Queen",[6] which is a long way from being the first South Indian in UK to receive this honor. "Donor ambassador" is a term recently invented for health workers who encourage other people to sign up as donors; it doesn't have any particular distinction. NebY (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly agree with you; any one can make a nomination. But one certainly need to understand the process after receiving the nomination. Its a through process by the UK government, not all tom dick and harry will get through the process. You can refer to the process followed by the UK government here. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-the-honours-system-works
    I can certainly feel your attitude towards a healthcare worker in your last sentence. Being a healthcare worker, I can certainly understand the value of such titles such as donor ambassadors, because they really make a real difference to several peoples lives. One should be in their shoes to understand the value of the work healthcare workers do especially in organ donation and transplantation as they work with real life scenarios everyday - life and death on a daily basis. It may not have any particular value, importance or distinction for lay people who doesnt have any medical knowledge or understand what is going on behind scenes. Shinomol (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Further re the first South Indian in UK to receive this honor: we have, for example, articles on M. V. Narasimha Rao and S. Muthiah, neither one relying on their MBEs for notability. NebY (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to the comment, it's important to clarify that while M. V. Narasimha Rao and S. Muthiah do not rely on their MBEs for notability, their achievements and contributions in other significant areas—such as sports and writing—elevate their prominence, with the MBE serving as an additional recognition of their impact. In the case of the individual under discussion, being the first South Indian to receive an MBE in the UK holds unique professional, and cultural significance. This milestone could be considered a notable achievement in itself, given its contribution to the UK healthcare especially organ donation and transplantation.
    The individual's distinction as the first South Indian recipient of this honor may highlight not only personal achievements but also wider societal progress, particularly in the context of Organ Donation awareness and the role played in the educational campaigns. Thus, while an MBE alone may not confer automatic notability, the social and healthcare context and pioneering nature of this honor for a particular community could be a valid factor in establishing the subject's notability for a Wikipedia entry. Shinomol (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no evidence that Shibu Chacko was the first South Indian recipient of this honor. NebY (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You could rephrase this to first Malayalee if that claim is too broad. Shinomol (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no evidence that Shibu Chacko was the first Malayalee. NebY (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you share any other malayalees names? Shinomol (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. You're making claims that you can't substantiate. I see no point in discussing this further. NebY (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also disinclined to continue this conversation with you. If you assert that Shibu Chacko is not the first Malayalee to receive the MBE honours, it is essential that you provide evidence to substantiate this claim, rather than diminishing my argument and avoiding further discussion. Shinomol (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Past consensus in AfD discussions has generally been that an MBE does not suffice for notability, although of course it also does not prevent notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that an MBE alone may not automatically meet the threshold for notability under Wikipedia guidelines. However, it is important to consider that while an MBE itself does not confer notability, it can be an indicator of broader achievements and public impact on healthcare outcomes, especially when coupled with significant contributions in other fields such as training, volunteering and organ donation campaigns. Thank you Shinomol (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Shinomol is a confirmed sock of Shibuchakson, who declared here to have a conflict of interest regarding the subject of this AfD. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Monophile. Badbluebus (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Shinomol is not acting for Mr Chacko nor a proxy for anyone. I know Mr Chacko professionally as a Organ Donation Coordinator in my role as a senior nurse in intensive care. I was fortunate to work with Mr Chacko while facilitating several organ doantion operations and attended the classes organised by him as well. You can verify my identity through nhs credentials if required. I am unable to share those here. Shinomol (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He meets WP:BASIC He was awarded a MBE in the Queen's Birthday Honours list for the work he did with the promotion of organ donation among the minority communities in the UK, he being accorded the MBE recognition for his services within the NHS Trusts in the United Kingdom. He also has reliable coverages for verifiability some of which are 123456 Isha Sattar (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User Isha Sattar only has 18 edits and previously !voted keep at the AfD of an article created by Monophile, the same sockpuppet of Zimidar that created Shibu Chacko. Just like Jxggii and Fayyazwill, their first edits on Wikipedia were related to redirect requests. Badbluebus (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With only the weak deletes from experienced editors, I think we need more discussion. I have semi'ed the page to allow for that
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only coverage seems to be about the MBE, and there are thousands of recent recipients. Simply having a popular course and an award is not grounds for an article, however interesting the story may be - this makes it arguably WP:NSUSTAINED. If it is true that he is the first south Indian to recieve this award then my decision would instead be a weak keep, but as a user above noted, there is no evidence for this. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 07:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warwick Ventures (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)

Low quality sourcing on the page, little else seen in good quality third party sources to show that this subject has notability outside of University of Warwick. Anything which has significance could be merged there. JMWt (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Zerzan (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)

Heavily promotional resume-like article with no established and WP:SUSTAINED notability with WP:RSes Amigao (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Harries (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 article as it stands is unsourced. The assertion of notability relies on WP:INHERITed notability from the bands with which he has played, not on WP:MUSICBIO. Those with VRTS access can see ticket:2024091010008831. Cabayi (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Colchester City 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)

This is a planned election for a second-tier local government authority scheduled for nearly two years away. A case of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. AusLondonder (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More explanation and policy consideration in the comments would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Staggering lack of sources -- all coverage is from the local government, which is obviously not independent. The lone non-government source makes no mention of this election. This is undeniably a case of CRYSTAL, and I question whether this election will ever be notable considering the articles on previous years are sourced to the city council itself and one local newspaper (failing GNG and SUSTAINED). JoelleJay (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
St Austell Golf Club (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 the general notability guideline. None of the sources in the article are reliable or have significant coverage of the subject, and a quick look for more did not turn up anything promising. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Crosby (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, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 08:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I disagree that most of the references given above are interviews; they are articles that partially quote him, but that is rather common for articles about a person. I find the Wired, the Register, Infoworld and CRN to be independent, and together they demonstrate notability. None provides a true biography, so hopefully that will come along in the future giving us more personal, rather than just professional, information. Lamona (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Would a redirect to Bromium be a good alternative to deletion? It looks like most of the coverage is more of Bromium than of Crosby. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rina Lipa (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 fails to meet WP:GNG on their own merit and is only notable due to being the sister of a notable person, as evidenced by all available references primarily focusing on her relationship to her sister. And WP:INVALIDBIO explicitly state That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parabellum Investments (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 corporation. All sources are WP:CORPTRIV about the firm's acquisitions. Also created by a blocked user. — Dan Leonard • talk • contribs 18:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I removed the excessive references, keeping only those that could be considered substantial, 3rd party. There are multi-paragraph articles about each of the acquisitions that discuss the business aspects. I think this now meets NCORP. Lamona (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source review:
  1. "Increasing market regulation a step in the wrong direction, says private equity leader". EconoTimes. 2023-08-27. Retrieved 2024-09-23.

    Not independent: written by or in close collaboration with Parabellum Investments' founder.

  2. Bignell, Francis (2021-05-06). "ieDigital: Have UK Financial Institutions' Investments Into the Digital World Provided Returns?".

    Not in-depth: makes only a passing mention to Parabellum Investments, and not even in the article prose.

  3. "TMX sells Razor Risk to Parabellum". Finadium. 2017-01-09. Retrieved 2024-09-23.

    Not in-depth: brief one-paragraph announcement of a corporate acquisition.

  4. Taylor, Phil (2020-04-16). "Private equity firm buys anti-counterfeit firm Advanco". www.securingindustry.com. Retrieved 2024-09-23.

    Not in-depth: makes only a passing mention to Parabellum Investments, and only in describing how Parabellum's CEO will become chairman of the company that is the actual subject of the article.

  5. Stuart-Turner, Richard (2023-01-04). "Tall Group acquired by Parseq". Printweek. Retrieved 2024-09-23.}

    Not in-depth: makes only a passing mention to Parabellum Investments, and is about an acquisition by a subsidiary of Parabellum. A full level removed.

  6. "Advanco becomes the world's largest independent pharmaceutical serialization solutions provider following the acquisition of Vantage Consulting Group | Pharma Business International". 2023-06-15. Retrieved 2024-09-23.

    Not independent: quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.

  7. "Rami Cassis Acquires Connect FSS Through ieDigital – in Latest Step Towards Building World's Largest Fintech Targeting Mid-tier Financial Institutions". Financial IT. Retrieved 2024-09-23.

    Not independent: quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.

  8. Tullis, Mark (2023-10-11). "Connect FSS Acquired by Parabellum Investments". www.techbuzz.news. Retrieved 2024-09-23.

    Not in-depth: primarily about the company being acquired by Parabellum and not about Parabellum itself.

  9. "ieDigital Acquires Abaka". FinSMEs. 2024-01-29. Retrieved 2024-09-23.

    Not in-depth: primarily about the company being acquired by Parabellum and not about Parabellum itself.

I still see no evidence of Parabellum meeting WP:NCORP. None of these sources qualify. — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 04:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a family office, and being realistic, it's going to be rare for any of those to receive NCORP-level coverage. Looking through the usually M&A dross, I see no reason to believe this one is an exception. Delete: Coverage needs to be of the company, and not inherited from sources describing the operations of their subsidiaries. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
John Cooke (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)

Lots of passing mentions for the man and an interview but nothing else. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 07:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the sources are about him directly, I think that covers WP:SIGCOV. Mewhen123 (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mewhen123: What three sources are there. Can you point them out please. scope_creepTalk 13:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here they are, in fact there are four. Mewhen123 (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews can't establish notability as they are WP:PRIMARY and both non-social media websites. Social media can't be used in this manner to establish notability. Its not on. On the BLP policy page it states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". None of these are proper WP:SECONDARY sources that are needed for a WP:BLP. scope_creepTalk 14:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Diamond Garden Centres (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 cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:CORP Loewstisch (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per lack of WP:GNG and claim to WP:NCORP is none existent. Sources are 100% primary to the garden and its partners. It may be the largest garden chain but it clearly fails notability. Piscili (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis that industry pages for like (and smaller) garden centre operators do not appear to be subject to deletion discussion including British Garden Centres Notcutts & Bents Garden Centre. Outside of garden centre retail there are many other pages for retail businesses with a much lesser profile eg L&F Jones, Ugo (retailer) being a couple of examples. Asterixthegaul (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. That argument won't pass muster here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting from that link “ While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. ”
    and
    ” In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia”
    This specific article is written in a similar form to other articles on Garden Centre chains within the UK. Notoriety in this industry from examination of national news, appears to derive from commercial failure. Asterixthegaul (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no precedent. None of those have been through a deletion discussion. If you want this article kept, you need to focus on sources. We are looking for multiple reliable secondary sources with significant coverage as described in WP:CORPDEPTH. Are you aware of any? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The relevant subject specific deletion guidelines are WP:NCORP. Per WP:SIRS we need multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject that contain significant coverage of the subject at WP:CORPDEPTH. There are no such sources in the article. Anything with depth is from the company themselves, so not independent. Other sources that mention them, e.g. in the context of a National Trust press release [15] do not contain CORPDEPTH (and that is withoout consideration of whether a press release is independent). My searches have not found anything further, and no others have been presented at AfD. This does not meet WP:NCORP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Emily Roberts (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 nominating this to become a redirect to the subject's band, The Last Dinner Party; I choose not to do this unilaterally because NPP reviewer Ipigott re-reviewed it after I unreviewed it. None of the article's current citations show WP:BANDMEMBER being met; they consist of two insta posts, two interviews, the subject's webpage, and a performance listing. My WP:BEFORE search showed coverage in the context of the band and interviews, not enough to meet BANDMEMBER. Mach61 16:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to move it back.--Ipigott (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott Eh, If I've already started the AfD, I may as well see it to completion. I assume you mean't "feel free to unilaterally redirect the page", since the page was never moved. Mach61 18:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It started out as a redirect on 2 February 2024 as can be seen from the article's history.--Ipigott (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Last Dinner Party per nomination. Opposed to merging given 1. the nature of the sources and 2. I don't believe this info fits within the scope of the band's article. It would be fine to include in this article if independent notability were established, but I don't believe it's remotely close in this state. Seconding Left guide's assessment of above votes. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The only sources I could find that are independent, reliable, and predominantly about Emily Roberts (as opposed to The Last Dinner Party) are: this review of her EP in Jazz Journal, and an article and an interview in Guitar World. Both of those publications are on our list of reliable sources at WP:RSMUSIC. I can't decide whether she just about scrapes WP:MUSICBIO - that's why I'm writing this as a comment. In any case, the current article is too promotional (is she really "known for...her eclectic musical influences"?).
GanzKnusper (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the GW interview nor the article move the needle much (actually, the article is mostly quotes anyways), but the Jazz Journal review definitely does. If 1-2 more sources like that are found I might change to a weak keep. Mach61 16:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Those arguing for keep may want to try to reduce the promo tone of the article, which is a major concern of the non-keep participants here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the recently added reference material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Gamble (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)

Another example of a well-written but ultimately non-notable article - young footballer who fails WP:GNG. Creator has been indef blocked for repeatedly creating non-notable articles. GiantSnowman 14:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Parks Operational Command Unit (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)

Whilst this unit does exist (see here), it does not seem to be particularly notable, with very few non-primary sources. On searching, almost all external sources relate to the Royal Parks Constabulary instead. The existence of a police unit should not automatically warrant an article. Elshad (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and keep improving. Potentially rename to Royal Parks Police after AfD is closed, as that it seems that is how the unit is referred to these days. Added several references including the 2008 article in Horticulture Week; even though the article quotes PC Derek Pollock, it includes commentary by journalist Magda Ibrahim, who has monitored policing of the parks over the years (see her other articles citing the unit in 2008 and 2009). Also interesting was this 2012 Ham & High article examining why the number of crimes recorded in Royal Parks jumped from 465 in 2003 (the year before the Met took over) to 2,373 in 2011 (answer: 'proactive' cannabis arrests). But anyway there is a lot more recent coverage if you search on "Royal Parks Police" instead of "Royal Parks Operational Command Unit". While I have added at least one source using the two names interchangeably, I haven't yet found any source explicitly calling it out as an actual name change. More research and improvement is required, but this is a pass from me. I wouldn't merge it with the historical constabulary article as that refers to the former organisational entity which was independent of the Met. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates