Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom

WP:AFD/UK

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

See also:

Scan for United Kingdom related AfDs

Scan for United Kingdom related Prods
Scan for United Kingdom related TfDs

United Kingdom

Black British Theatre Awards

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

Non notable award. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from individuals asked to host the event. Raj Shri21 (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Events, and United Kingdom. Raj Shri21 (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs improvement but a news search shows in depth coverage in the Guardian, The Stage and London Evening Standard. Orange sticker (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Howlin' Ric & The Rocketeers

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

Band doesn't appear to be notable enough, and coverage from reliable sources is clearly lacking. Fails WP:NBAND. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any independent sources or signs they might meet notability guidelines. Orange sticker (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stevenage Mail Centre

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

Not a notable Mail Centre. Rolluik (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. Rolluik (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regional mail centres aren't really notable, though obviously they generate a bit of news when they get restructured or closed down. Elemimele (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Hunt

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

No evidence of notability, most of the sources cited don't even mention the subject, and BEFORE finds nothing better (although I should add that searching is a bit tricky, as there are plenty of Lawrence Hunts out there). Very insufficiently referenced, as well, esp. for a BLP, and involves quite a lot of COI editing, making it effectively just vanispamcruftisement. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Aviation, and United Kingdom. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a CV in prose form, not an encyclopaedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 02:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Seungmin Kim

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

Strongly suspect this is WP:COI. New user created this page, made trivial edits to get ability to create articles, and created it.

ko:김승민 큐레이터 ("Kim Seung-min Curator") this is the corresponding article on the Korean Wikipedia; it probably should be deleted too because it's clearly COI. It was created by a "Curatorkim" user (likely Kim herself); the article was made just a few days before the enwiki version.

My guess is that Kim hired someone to write this article in English for her. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, South Korea, and United Kingdom. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 03:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COI concerns unless there are WP:RS on the issue. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 09:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mentions of her here and there, biographies on affiliated sites. No independent significant coverage. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Jefferson

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

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

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

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

Christopher Snowdon

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

Previous PROD (endorsed and deleted) for a subject who has no secondary sources, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR nor WP:JOURNALIST. The subject's claim to a PhD cannot be verified - I wrote to the alleged awarding institution as neither I nor others could find any PhD and the institution provided no information. The restoration of this one seems to have been an error, caught up in this mass restore of soft deleted articles [1] where discussion shows that the dePRODer intended to restore sports bios PRODed by a particular user, but included this one apprently by accident. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIRS so fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Fails all of the above. This is a waste of time. Anwegmann (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neuron (company)

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

I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV for this blockchain company, even after searching for stuff under the founders' names and different variations of the company's name. The sources are all primary sources or routine coverage in unreliable sources. Not really anything that meets WP:GNG. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and United Kingdom. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Aviation, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is based on non-reliable sources, and not a single reference appears to be strong or convincing. If anyone comes across any reliable and in-depth coverage related to this topic, please do ping me, I'd be happy to reconsider my decision. Thank you! Baqi:) (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I’ve noticed that several of the sources included incorrect or broken URLs. I’ve corrected these where possible and removed any uncredited information. I hope this helps strengthen the article. Thank you! Lexiconia (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is usually a sign that the article was written by some AI. Polygnotus (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company, does not meet WP:NCOMPANY or WP:GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Credible sources used following a third iteration and notable verified information found within the platform X (formerly twitter) Blossom Index (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- - Twitter (and other social media) is not reliable and shouldn't be used as verification. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to support WP:NCORP notability. References consist of warmed-over press releases and routine coverage (funding, partnership, etc.) An independent search failed to find non-trivial independent RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Park Plaza Westminster Bridge

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

No significant coverage. Aŭstriano (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, United Kingdom, and England. Aŭstriano (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ WP:MILL hotel property; the article talks more about the former 'eyesore' building occupying its plot than the actual current hotel. Nathannah • 📮 17:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gol-dangit Cunard, you did it again, you rescued another article with details about the actual buildings, with details about how an eyesore was replaced by a sterile tin can that's a competent hotel. Switching to keep. Nathannah • 📮 01:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely run of the mill hotel. The majority of the sources about this hotel are about how an eyesore of a derelict was replaced (by this sterile tin can). King Charles III shudders every time he passes by. Bearian (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Engineered constructs says:
Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

Sources
1. "Park Plaza Westminster Bridge: A claustrophobic monolith with good gadgets and bad views". The Times. 2010-05-01. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
  The review notes: "Sitting in the Primo bar of this vast new 1,021-room hotel — the biggest in London — we looked out of the window and tried to take in Big Ben at sunset. There should have been a clear view to the Houses of Parliament from the building, which resembles an enormous tenpin bowling ball with the top sliced off, and is on the roundabout site of the long-derelict former offices of the Inner London Education Authority. But despite the location just south of Westminster Bridge — we wanted to be close to the action in the run-up to the election — it was difficult to catch a glimpse of Westminster Palace, the target of Brown, Clegg and Cameron’s ambitions."
2. Coren, Giles (2010-07-03). "Giles Coren reviews Brasserie Joël, London SE1". The Times. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
  The review notes: "It’s hard to know where to start with the chop-slapping accuracy of the phrase “horrible place”. You know the roundabout on the south side of Westminster Bridge which has been a huge stinking mess of building site behind vast forbidding hoardings for about 200 years? Well, now it’s even uglier. Because what is there now is a big round black thing called the Westminster Bridge Park Plaza – although I believe they brand it “Park Plaza Westminster Bridge” to make absolutely certain you are aware it is a grand international chain, and the famous river crossing is merely tagged on as an address to help Japanese overnighters give easy directions to their taxi. This hulking carbuncstrosity – which claims (by all the gods) to be a “design-led hotel”, as if that were a positive thing in some way – is self-besplattered with enormous bill posters (which is not very “design-led” if you ask me) advertising “500 Studio Rooms ideal for families”, “Five distinctive dining and entertainment experiences”, “1,200 square-metre, pillar-free ballroom”, “31 additional meeting rooms, two executive lounges and free Wi-Fi throughout” and “Spa with eight treatment rooms and a Fitness Centre complete with 15-metre swimming pool”. Ooh, “pillar-free”. How thrilling."
3. Jeffs, Lotte (October 2010). "Hotel of the Month: Park Plaza Westminster". Diva. p. 70. ProQuest 2370993087.
  The review notes: "Westminster's Park Plaza offers all the inconspicuousness of a big city chain hotel, but with those stylish flourishes and designer details that make doing the dirty feel a little less sordid. Make sure you book a room above the fifth floor to enjoy a panoramic view of the Houses of Parliament (that other den of iniquity), the Thames and a load of little people with far less glamorous and exciting lives than yours - obviously - scurrying home to their partners over Westminster Bridge. The rooms themselves offer everything you need for a night of illicit infidelity - namely a big comfy bed, a power shower and a Do Not Disturb sign. The hotel's restaurant serves really good, elegant, first-date food (no burritos that will leave a trail of salsa down your chin and have your mistress wondering if she really is doing the wrong thing!), the lighting is flattering and the service attentive but not too much so. There's also a good-sized pool and spa at the hotel so you can feel thoroughly cleansed the morning after the night before."
4. Phillips, Jessica (2024-05-02). "The 24 best romantic hotels in London". Time Out. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
  The review notes: "Run by mammoth hotel chain Radisson, who also run the Park Inn and art 'otel brands, Park Plaza Westminster is a slick operation that also caters to the masses. With 1,023 rooms and suites, it's closer to a cruise ship than to its neighbour and rival, Premier Inn. Rooms are stripped back, with white walls and a dark wooden table making up the skeleton of the space. The minimalism is deliberate; the majority of rooms have a screensaver view of the Houses of Parliament, Big Ben and The London Eye. So close are you to the Elizabeth Tower, you might as well be reading the ten o' clock news. The hotel has a gym, pool, steam room, sauna and spa. Brasserie Joel is also a dining experience worth slowing down for. The French restaurant serves up classics like beef bourguignon, guinea fowl and French onion soup alongside an extensive wine menu."
5. Syz, Francesca (2010-07-31). "Four of the best hotels by the Thames, by Francesca Syz". The Daily Telegraph. ProQuest 734431511.
  The review notes: "After years of having to look at a monstrous office block at the centre of the roundabout just south of Westminster Bridge, we now have something new and infinitely nicer to consider - the futuristic, cylindershaped Park Plaza Westminster Bridge Hotel. Located a minute's walk from the London Eye and two minutes from the Houses of Parliament, this 1,021-room hotel is an ideal base for a sightseeing weekend in London. While not directly on the river, the hotel has uninterrupted views of Westminster Bridge. More than half the rooms have their own kitchenettes, and 27 have outdoor terraces (these rooms will open shortly). There's also a brasserie-style restaurant, a sushi bar, coffee shop and an eight-treatment-room spa with a swimming-pool and gym. While rooms with river views cannot be guaranteed, you can request one; and here's a tip - any room with the number 69 in it will have a river view (269, 369 etc). From floors two to seven, you can see Westminster Bridge, Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament; from floors eight to 12, you will see the river, too."
6. Carmichael, Sri (2009-07-22). "Super-green hotel will bottle its own brand of mineral water". Evening Standard. Factiva NS00000020090724e57m0000c. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
  The article notes: "The largest hotel ever built in London will bottle all its own water to offer guests instead of expensive mineral brands.The final beam of the £350 million Park Plaza Westminster Bridge hotel was bolted into place by Mayor Boris Johnson last night at the 'topping out' ceremony.The 1,021-room riverside hotel on the South Bank, which offers uninterrupted views of the Houses of Parliament from the former site of the Greater London Council building, will be one of the greenest in the capital once it opens early next year.The onsite water plant is expected to produce more than a million bottles of triple-filtered tap water ‹ sparkling and still ‹ each year, using 10,000 reusable sterilised bottles for the hotel's restaurants, mini-bars and spa."
7. Chesters, Laura (2010-04-16). "Check-out time at Park Plaza: Investors struggle to find mortgages for $300m hotel rooms". Property Week. Factiva CSYR000020100416e64g00002.
  The article notes: "More than 840 investors have been refused mortgages on £300m of luxury hotel rooms they were to buy at a recently completed development in central London.In 2007, investors put down deposits for rooms at the Park Plaza Westminster Bridge London, a 1,021-room apart-hotel and conference venue that opened last month.On 6 April the developer, Park Plaza, served notice to the investors to complete their purchases.Park Plaza had sold the hotel rooms off plan to private investors.The buyers agreed to pay £300,000 on average for a hotel room with the promise of a 6% annual return on their money over five years.But the downturn and the lack of bank finance means no investor has been able to secure a mortgage against the assets on a non-recourse basis."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Park Plaza Westminster Bridge to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep per the excellent WP:HEY work done. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Escape of Traitors Act 1572

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

Couldn't find any independent reliable secondary coverage. Topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, and United Kingdom. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEYMANN. Satisfies GNG and much expanded and improved. Apart from the sources already in the article, it has significant coverage in other books in Google Books and the Internet Archive. For a random example, I could point to Bellamy's Tudor Law of Treason [2]. James500 (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That source only appears to provide a passing mention. Legend of 14 (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source contains significant coverage. James500 (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's like half a paragraph about the act. Legend of 14 (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage in that paragraph is not brief, let alone "a passing mention", and the coverage continues in the next paragraph (so more than half a paragraph). And there are other sources: Willis-Bund is already in the article. James500 (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; have expanded and appears to me to satisfy GNG. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. It's an Act of Parliament, for crying out loud. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Treason Act 1535

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

Couldn't find independent, reliable, secondary substantial coverage of this topic. ~~The only source cited in the article is the act itself.~~ Legend of 14 (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, and United Kingdom. Legend of 14 (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominators' claim that "the only source cited in the article is the Act itself" is false. The article cites two journal articles from JSTOR. These citations were in the article when the nomination was made. James500 (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I use assistive technology, and it seems like there was sources I missed, because it contains a character or formatting my screen reader doesn't like. I've had friend verify the presence of the sources. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. The nominator made this group of AfD nominations at intervals of between 1 and 3 minutes. There is no way that he could have done a WP:BEFORE search in that length of time. James500 (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did the WP:BEFORE for the group of articles, before I moved to nominations. That's why they're so close together. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article and the others nominated by the same user already include valid references such as this one: Elton, G. R. (1968). "The Law of Treason in the Early Reformation". The Historical Journal. 11 (2): 211–236. doi:10.1017/S0018246X00001990. ISSN 0018-246X. JSTOR 2637780. A reference doesn't have to be exclusively about the topic of an article to be useful. LeapTorchGear (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG, with significant coverage in books and periodicals in Google Books and the Internet Archive. For a random example, I could point to Bellamy's Tudor Law of Treason [3]. There are many, many, many other sources. The Act is also cited by various abbreviations of its session and chapter, by its long title, as "Treason(s) Act", as the 1535 Act or the 1536 Act, as the Act made it treason to forge the sign manual, and so on. There may be popular titles. James500 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Dormskirk (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY: recent improvements prove notability. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. It's an Act of Parliament, for crying out loud. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Treason Act 1429

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

The only source I could find for this act was a mention in the footnote of the cited source. I couldn't find any more coverage of this topic. It is worth saying that this is nowhere near the coverage required by the GNG. Legend of 14 (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, and United Kingdom. Legend of 14 (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Search has links to JSTOR, Cambridge University Press [4], and other sources. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:BEFORE applies. – The Grid (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Dormskirk (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Grid, and the sources he provides. See also Bellamy's Law of Treason in the Later Middle Ages [5] and passim, and other books by Bellamy eg [6] and Tudor Law. Some other sources: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] (and footnote 23). The Act made arson with blackmail a form of treason. James500 (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - besides not doing a proper WP:BEFORE search, this was never read critically. This article, Treason Act 1429, created a felony of high treason to threaten arson for blackmail. Arguably this inchoate offence was the first law to criminalize attempted arson, and was one of the first anti-terrorism laws, almost six centuries ago. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - maybe needs cleanup to avoid WP:CRUFT, but valid. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. It's an Act of Parliament, for crying out loud. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Treason Act 1399

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

Couldn't find sufficient reliable, independent, secondary coverage that this warrants inclusion on Wikipedia under the GNG. Legend of 14 (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, and United Kingdom. Legend of 14 (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG, with significant coverage in books and periodicals in Google Books and the Internet Archive. For random examples, I could point to pp 97, 98 and 130 of Boyer and Nicholls [15], Willis-Bund [16], Stacy [17] and Cox [18]. The Act repealed the Treasons created by Richard II [19] (and his judges). James500 (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY (although as usual I prefer the sources to be added to the article). AfD is not for clean up. If you're really bored and want to clean up articles, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/June 2025. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. It's an Act of Parliament, for crying out loud. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Treason Act 1423

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

Couldn't find a single independent source on this topic. Only source cited by this article is the act. Legend of 14 (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, and United Kingdom. Legend of 14 (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG, with significant coverage in books in Google Books etc. For some random examples, see Harris Rulers and Ruled [20] and Willis-Bund [21] and numerous other history books. The Act made it treason for a person charged with treason to escape from custody, and seems to have been directed at John Mortimer (ie Mortimer's Case). The article originally said c 17, not c 21. "Treason Act 1423" is a neologism, and sources say that Mortimer was indicted on what they call the "Statute of Escapes". James500 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Harris Rulers and Ruled appears to be a tertiary source as it appears to cite a secondary source for its information. Willis-Bund does not appear to mention the act once. WP:SIGCOV is not met. Legend of 14 (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, Harris is secondary. I cannot see any reason to doubt that Harris is secondary. The claim you make about Willis-Bund is manifestly false: This Act is the "2 Hen. VI. c. 17" referred to in the marginal citation on p 29; the passage beside that marginal note (and the marginal note "Persons breaking prison") in Willis-Bund, is entirely about this Act; it is obvious that passage is talking about this Act; and the preceding passage on that page, and p 28, about Mortimer's Case, is explaining why this Act was passed. (The citation 2 Hen VI c 17, instead of 2 Hen VI c 21, is because the chapter in Ruffhead's Statutes is different from the numbering in the Record Commissioner's edition.) SIGCOV is met. James500 (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. You can't just search the main Google for anything that was created before the Internet; you have to look for books and Scholar. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. It's an Act of Parliament, for crying out loud. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Kershaw

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a karateka, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing notability criteria for sportspeople. As always, sports figures are not automatically notable just for existing, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them and their accomplishments -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source content self-published by organizations he was directly affiliated with, showing no GNG-worthy reliable sourcing whatsoever, and claims absolutely nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable without proper GNG-worthy sourcing.
There's also not a single inbound link to this article from any other Wikipedia article but List of karateka -- and while that isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself, it does kind of imply something about notability if there aren't any other articles with his name in them at all. Even after doing a text search on "Dave Kershaw", every single other instance of that name in Wikipedia is referring to a yachter, a scientist or a Canadian record producer, not a karateka.
Note also prior discussion (which did pertain to this same Dave Kershaw) which landed as a delete — this was recreated four years later by a different WP:SPA with no history of editing on any other topic, the same situation as the prior deleted version, thus continuing to suggest a potential WP:COI. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant independent coverage that shows WP:GNG is met. He also fails WP:ANYBIO and I don't see any SNG that he meets. Papaursa (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sigcov in my searches so far, not opposed to draftify as ATD if any RS can still be found, on a side note an idea is to make an article about the Konjaku Shin National School of Karate he founded, which I have yet to see an existing article been made.Lorraine Crane (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Law Act 1827

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

This topic does not have sources that meet the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. I went searching for additional sources, but couldn't find anything. I will go through the references in the article as of this comment, and explain why each of the sources inadequate.

Only cites other acts, which are not independent sources for this topic.
"Pratt, John Tidd (1827). A Collection of the Late Statutes Passed for the Administration of Criminal Justice in England. 52 Fleet St, London: W Benning. p. 69." Just seems to be the text of the statute, not independent or secondary.
Bouvier, John (1856). "Bouvier's Law Dictionary". Constitution Society. Retrieved 11 June 2016. The phrase "Criminal Law Act" appears 0 times on the webpage.
Baker, J. H. (2007). An Introduction to English Legal History (4th ed.). Oxford: OUP. ISBN 978-0-406-93053-8. Is only offered to provide background information about other laws.
Oldham, James (1 June 2006). Trial by Jury. New York: NYU Press. p. 278. ISBN 0814762042. This is just a page of footnotes in a book about the American justice, in which the phrase "Criminal Law Act" does not appear.
Burtsell, Richard (1907). "Benefit of Clergy". The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved 11 June 2016 – via New Advent. The phrase "Criminal Law Act" does not appear. This source also may be Tertiary
Deedes, John; Merivale, Herman (1851). Law Society Reports. Vol. X. London: E B Ince. p. 27. The Law Society may not be independent, but this source is only being cited for information about the Felony Act 1841.

None of these sources provide secondary, independent, substantial coverage required by the aforementioned guideline. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG very clearly, with significant coverage in Google Books, Google Scholar, the Internet Archive, HeinOnline and elsewhere. The sources presently in the article are not the only ones. For random examples, I could point to the commentary on the Act in Halsbury's Statutes [22] and Archbold's Peel's Acts [23] and periodical articles [24]. I actually cited Chitty's Statutes on the talk page. There are many, many, many other sources. The short title was given to the Act in the 1890s, and is not always used. The Act is also cited by session and chapter, by its long title ("Act for further improving the Administration of Justice") and so on. They may be popular titles. James500 (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. It's an Act of Parliament, for crying out loud. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Acts of Parliament are not presumed notable. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. Mauls (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Legend of 14 (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Extensive coverage in legal textbooks. Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Dormskirk (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^{[citation needed]} Legend of 14 (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already provided you with several citations. James500 (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator. The Act is undeniably significant, as it abolished the Benefit of clergy, and any work which discusses that subject will mention that it was abolished by this Act. Now, I suppose it could be argued that's just a "trivial mention" as far as our notability criteria are concerned, but I think that would be an overly-pedantic approach to the issue. Tevildo (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to be a landmark act of parliament and while existing sources may not be sufficient per. OP, they WP:NEXIST and do not warranty deletion. WeWake (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lorne Maclaine, Baron of Moy

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

Minor nobility? figure, has not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." to pass WP:BIO WP:GNG Suggest redirect to Clan Maclaine of Lochbuie Nayyn (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and United Kingdom. Nayyn (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellycrak88 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Africa and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage at all outside of Burke's Peerage, which includes more than 100,000 living people - clearly not enough to fulfil WP:GNG. Even a redirect seems generous. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 21:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Statutes Repeal Act 1827

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

Cannot find more than passing mention in independent, secondary sources. WP:NOTABILITY Legend of 14 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article already has four secondary sources in the references, and is a notable statute. Tagging for ref improvement would be a more appropriate action. Mauls (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your second sentence. I feel that the addition of further templates to these articles would constitute sealioning. We know that these Acts satisfy GNG, and we should not be adding templates that suggest they might not. James500 (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. It's an Act of Parliament, for crying out loud. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Acts of Parliament are not presumed notable. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG, with significant coverage in books and articles. For a random example, consider this periodical article on the Act: [25]. If I understand correctly this Act repealed the statutes for benefit of clergy and most capital offences. "Criminal Statutes Repeal Act" is a popular title, and the Act is more often cited by its long title, or by various abbreviations of its session and chapter (eg 7 & 8 Geo 4 c 27). James500 (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Extensive coverage in legal textbooks. Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Dormskirk (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^{[citation needed]} Legend of 14 (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This Start-class article already has several secondary sources. I don't expect laypeople to be able to understand how important such a law is, but it is as others have pointed out: but I do expect people to read the article, conduct reasonable searches online, and think before trying to redirect or delete an article. There is so much actual work to be done at WikiProject Law, I'm confused why anyone would pick this particular article to try to disappear. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources need to provide significant coverage. They do not currently provide significant coverage. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This seems to be a very notable law with extensive coverage. I am not clear why this was ever brought up for AfD. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Coen

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

Another Vintagekits hagiography of an individual who lacks WP:SIGCOV. This was a man at the lower end of the IRA food chain whose only claim to fame is getting killed by an undercover soldier in a shoot-out.

Sourcing of the article is poor, and although Coen is described in some quality publications, these are almost all passing mentions of the circumstances of his death. Leonstojka (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland. Leonstojka (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Secondary Ticket Agents

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

Declined prod that was redirected to Financial Services Authority. I don't believe it should be redirected to an article which doesn't even refer to it. This article was created by a single purpose editor and unreferenced since 2008. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Fleming (Irish republican)

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

Similar to my nomination for Charles Breslin, this is another IRA biography of someone who seems to only attract coverage for his death in a particular incident involving undercover soldiers. The description and debate surrounding the manner of his killing could easily be reflected in other articles. Leonstojka (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland. Leonstojka (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the nomination, it is suggested that the main topic here (the subject's death) "could easily be reflected in other articles". Seeming to imply, if I'm reading the nom correctly, a possible merge/redirect option as WP:ATD. What target is proposed? Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland? Or elsewhere? (I ask mainly as, while I think I understand the reason for the nomination, I personally can't support deletion. Not when, it seems, the nomination itself suggests that alternatives to deletion are available? ...) Guliolopez (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article itself should be deleted and perhaps some content (the details of the killing itself, judicial review) salvaged for other articles. This is a different thing to the Charles Breslin nomination, because here there isn't really an obvious destination to merge/redirect into. Is there a more typical process for these kinds of situations? Should I have just opened a discussion about merging/redirecting on the article talkpage?

As you said, Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland is one merge possibility, and so is 14 Intelligence Company (it should be noted that, contrary to the outdated article, Fleming was not killed by the SAS), but I just don't see how a standalone page on this person can be justified (it's one of many Troubles related biographies that are basically 'man joins IRA, gets shot by undercover soldiers, the end'), with the contents dominated by whether or not his death was legally sound (although, it has to be said, some don't even do this much: see my nomination of Kevin Coen). There are IRA figures like Ivor Bell who easily pass WP:SIGCOV, but gunmen like Fleming don't meet that threshold IMO. Leonstojka (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repeal of Obsolete Statutes Act 1856

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

Independent secondary sources do not provide the coverage required by WP:NOTABLE. Parliament is not an independent source, and Wikipedia is not a law library. Legend of 14 (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. Legend of 14 (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional merge (selectively) to Statute Law Revision Act, as this was the first. These Acts tend to have a lot of coverage in law reports and legal periodicals, but there is no way I will be able to find it within the duration of an AfD. I should say that there are two people objecting to this AfD on the talk page, and I'll withdraw my !vote if there is no consensus that the Act fails GNG. James500 (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I ran a search for "Sleeping Statutes Bill" and "Statutes not in use Bill" and "Sleeping Statutes Act". I found there was an article in The Times [26], some other periodical articles [27] [28], a law book [29] and a number of other sources in GBooks. I think that is enough. A search for "Sleeping Statutes Bill" in the produces 445 results in the British Newspapers Archive and 191 results in Newspapers.com. I have only managed to look at The Guardian though. James500 (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep agree based on the two periodicals and law book cited above. Not sure about the Times as it's just an index entry, but three is enough. Oblivy (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Only the Law book and 1 of the periodicals provide more than passing coverage. Not satisfied that this is enough for this topic to warrant its own article. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both periodical articles contribute to significant coverage, and I do not believe you have read the paywalled article in column 6 on page 7 of the 21 August 1856 of The Times (which is what I think "21 a 7 f" means), or any of the other paywalled newspaper articles. James500 (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or failing that merge - it is clearly a notable development in statute. Mauls (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need sources for such a claim. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Halsbury's Laws labelled this act as the first act for statute law revision (in the sense of repealing enactments which are obsolete, spent, unnecessary or superseded, or which no longer serve a useful purpose).^[1] Courtenay Ilbert described this act as the first Statute Law Revision Act.^[2] Hughbe98 (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The description of coverage is not ~~substantial~~significant. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUBSTANTIAL, which you have linked to, is part of the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guideline. That guideline applies to organizations and companies. It does not apply to legislation. James500 (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mislink. I have linked to the relevant to notability guideline. Legend of 14 (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Halsbury's Laws of England. Fourth Edition. Reissue. Butterworths. London. 1995. Volume 44(1). Note 3 to paragraph 1227 at page 725.
^ Farmer, Lindsay (2000). "Reconstructing the English Codification Debate: The Criminal Law Commissioners, 1833-45". Law and History Review. 18 (2): 397–425. doi:10.2307/744300. ISSN 0738-2480. JSTOR 744300.

Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. It's an Act of Parliament, for crying out loud. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Acts of Parliament are not presumed notable. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. Mauls (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Legend of 14 (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Dormskirk (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^{[citation needed]} Legend of 14 (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already provided you with several citations. James500 (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Saying otherwise is idiotic and whoever made this afd should be banned from Wikipedia forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.97.175 (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parkers Pharma Limited

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

Generously, I can find no independent evidence that this company is notable in Wikipedia's sense. I find only the typical press-release type articles in sources that advertise new products when prompted by businesses, or announce business decisions based on releases from businesses. Slightly less generously, the article has items that fail verification, which suggests exaggeration or fantasy. Totally ungenerously, this is a business whose UK companies house records suggest is barely active and rather small. Google searches for the business find its social media sites (Facebook etc.) and nothing else. Google searches for its products find the products of other companies, not its own. The company has an impressive-seeming website but I only found the website via our Wikipedia article, and much of the text on individual products purportedly supplied by this company is actually word-for-word identical to text on other companies' sites. The company's website has an extensive catalogue of products, but no online shop, just a download our app option, and a generic send us a message. This is jut not normal behaviour for companies. They either make something that's not sold directly (in which case they don't have an app), or they make something and sell it (in which case they have an obvious way to buy). The whole thing doesn't add up. Ungenerously, I think we have to consider the possibility that this business is little more than a fantasy, a website and a companies house record. Disclosure, I met it via the AfD for its director, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wathek Zair. Elemimele (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, the weak only because I do not normally review companies so I am less confident of my expertise here. Similar to the nom, there are a lot of disturbing details. One I noticed before is the claimed co-founder "Sir William Howard" who I cannot find anywhere (see Howard family), so I marked him as failing verification. Similar disclosure; I also met this article via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wathek Zair. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe company has invented notable drugs and covered with significant sensed articles which are independent of the subject. CresiaBilli (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The current version of the article includes only unreliable sources such as b2bstars.com, tracxn.com, and alnabtah-alkhadra.com, none of which meet the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP. These sources do not establish the company's notability in any meaningful or verifiable way. Baqi:) (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV so as to establish notability through WP:NCORP, only thinly glossed press releases. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Heaven

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most sources self-published; & thats pretty much all a search throws up. TheLongTone (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some mention in trade publications [30]... Sourcing now in the article is primary or non-RS. I don't see enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete Seems like a very run-of-the-WP:MILL business. It would need some claim out of the ordinary, and sourcing to back that up. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:NCORP, Content generated by AI (WP:LLM). Baqi:) (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cascades Shopping Centre

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuance of Laws Act 1780

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

Couldn't find a single source that this topic warrants inclusion on Wikipedia, under WP:NOTABLE. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge to Expiring laws continuance legislation for the reasons I gave in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continuance, etc., of Acts, 1735. James500 (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. It's an Act of Parliament, for crying out loud. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Acts of Parliament are not presumed notable. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Expiring laws continuance legislation. Insufficiently distinct from other acts of Parliament of the same nature, so can be adequately covered in that overarching article. Mauls (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Dormskirk (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^{[citation needed]} Legend of 14 (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Island (UK amusement park)

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

Virtually unsourced, with the only non-database source in the article being about court proceedings for a nearby accident and not providing WP:SIGCOV for the park at all.

A WP:BEFORE gives me the Daily Mail, a park of the same name in Essex, and another article about the Essex park. Also a local newspaper which could be interesting if it wasn't just two paragraphs of paraphrasing the placement of a Lincolnshire park in a blog's UK top 10. And another interview in a local newspaper.

Of everything I found, this might be the closest to SIGCOV, but it is heavily quote-based and also from the aforementioned local newspaper. Nothing that makes it look like Fantasy Island is passing WP:GNG, or that it is even the most notable Fantasy Island UK amusement park. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and United Kingdom. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can find this article about the park being bought, but it's fairly routine stuff. Nothing that makes me feel this park is enough to pass GNG, so delete, albeit it is a weak one. CoconutOctopus talk 21:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I think it's probably possible to scrounge up something from the few good sources there are. It might not be comprehensive but it can probably be improved enough to not need to be deleted. I can start working on it. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have rewritten the page based on available sources. I think it's start-class at this point and I don't think it needs to be deleted now. I'm changing my vote from weak keep to keep. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has received a hefty makeover since being nominated, I will dish out a round of pings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 23:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby@CoconutOctopus Thoughts on the current version of the article? Toadspike [Talk] 23:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's now enough to meet GNG, so changing to keep. CoconutOctopus talk 19:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After the rewrite by @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan , the article has enough RS with 4 BBC News articles plus local ones. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

Candidates of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency

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

This is a lengthy list of candidates per constituency in last year's UK general election. It is all sourced to a single website. It violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY: it is not an encyclopaedia article and is better suited to Wikidata. We have all this information elsewhere (in the individual constituency articles) if someone wants to find out who stood in a particular constituency. What is the value of having it all in big Wikipedia tables repeated here? Bondegezou (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Bondegezou (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found it helpful on numerous occasions in my work, it saves me so much time rather than having to go into individual constituencies to find out. It exists for countless other countries and deleting it would only hinder. I would agree that if it were being created now then it would be problematic but it would ADD burdens, admittedly for only a few people but us nevertheless, rather than making anything more simple or easier to use. Please keep this genuinely very helpful article. Kepleo123 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a valid navigational article, even if it might need additional sources beyond the single one. A merge is not a good option because the other article is too long already. SportingFlyer T·C 16:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a valid navigational article? Nearly all losing candidates don't have articles to which to navigate, so the main navigation is just to the winner, but we already have List of MPs elected in the 2024 United Kingdom general election that covers that. How many different ways do we need the same information? Bondegezou (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What is it's value? Its value is in its use. I use the page regularly to access information. I find it an invaluable resource. We would not want to delete something if there is data showing that the page is well used. No data is being provided to justify its deletion. Graemp (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because nearly all of them don't doesn't mean there's anything at all invalid about this particular article. SportingFlyer T·C 16:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and seeing as there is one single source for all this information it may fall in a grey area copyright-wise per WP:ONESOURCE. Orange sticker (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a database as it's properly contextualised and it's not a resource for conducting business. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there are other sources available and it's a list of factual information, so there's no copyright issue. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTDATABASE. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 23:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: WP:NOTDATABASE has been mentioned twice but none of the points there are relevant to this AfD. The more relevant link would seem to be WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Stockhausenfan (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a directory, either - it's a list. SportingFlyer T·C 02:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it's useful and encylopeidc. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this is very useful and if something like this is precluded there should be change in policy. I don't see how it is substantially different from 1982 United States House of Representatives election. I don't know enough about WP:DIRECTORY to have an educated vote here. --Mpen320 (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the sole source of this table has a copyright notice saying it is owned by the Democracy Club Community Interest Company, who sell the data they compile commercially. [31] Should this be brought to WP:CPN? Orange sticker (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The website's design and prose is copyrighted. A publicly available list of names that they took from government sources is not a creative work that can be copyrighted, even if they sell compilations that include it. Reywas92^Talk 14:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's no notability in simply standing for election. As this event has passed, we only need a list of the winners of the election. We aren't an election wiki, listing each and every person that ever ran for an election at any point in time, anywhere on the planet. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to another Wikimedia wiki like Wikidata. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valuable list of information. This page was started after a discussion which involved the splitting of the Candidates in the 2024 United Kingdom general election page. Moondragon21 (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

England

Wigan Athletic F.C. 8–0 Hull City A.F.C.

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

Appears to fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. While an extraordinary scoreline given the circumstances in my (admittedly non-neutral) opinion, the result has no lasting impact or significance, and I was unable to find any coverage other than in the immediate aftermath of the game. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly worthy of a note on Wigan and Hull records pages and even the Championship league page and mention on season articles. Notable enough, however this does not need a match day article. Govvy (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NEVENT: "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved." It is necessary to demonstrate repercussions/impact after the match, not just impressions that occurred immediately afterwards (WP:LASTING). Every match with a large goal difference generates immediate repercussions and this in itself is not notable. Svartner (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage in the almost 5 years since the match. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Jillaroo tour of England

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

This was draftified after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Australia Jillaroos tour of England in April 2025. Only one source from after that date has been added, [32] which basically just repeats that no tour seems to be happening. Which leaves us with an article on a 2025 tour of England dealing with, er, one game in Las Vegas. Yet the article still proudly proclaims "The 2025 Jillaroo tour of England is a proposed tour of England by Australia women's national rugby league team in October and November 2025. The tour is scheduled to see the inaugural edition of the Women's rugby league Ashes contested." as its lead, even though basically nothing of this is true or likely to happen. Fram (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, Rugby league, England, and Australia. Fram (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The main issue last time was that the article stated the tour was definitely happening which was admitted to be a problem and why the article was redraftified. The article has since been partly rewriten to state that it is a proposed tour with both the lead being altered and a post-Vegas section to further explain why. Article is sufficiently cited, especially now the article is about a proposed tour, and has passed AfC twice. Mn1548 (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was just one of the many issues with the article raised in the original AfD, and the article now still calls it "scheduled" in the lead section, like I quote above, as if it is nearly certain to happen. It also, already in the lead, repeats the debunked claim of this being part of the Ashes. It still treats the Vegas match as part of the tour of England. As far as I can tell, hardly any issue that lead to the draftification has been solved. Fram (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Repeats the debunked claim of this being part of the Ashes. It still treats the Vegas match as part of the tour of England."
Im sorry, when did this become a debunked claim? Or an issue brought up in the previous AfD?
Ref 5 (RFL) "We have the Ashes Tours against Australia in 2025, which of course begins with a historic fixture in Las Vegas for England Women against the Jillaroos".

Ref 14 (IRL) "The Las Vegas fixture will count as part of the historic Ashes series between the two nations, which will continue when England travel to Australia at the end of the 2025 season."
Vegas being test 1 of the Ashes is also eluded to in Ref 13 aswell.

Further, what's wrong with "scheduled"? This tour has been scheduled in the IRL international calendar since 2023 (see Ref 3). Something scheduled isn't a certainty, hence why the lead was rewrote to state it is a proposed tour in lieu of no confirmed fixtures.Mn1548 (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No sources have treated the Las Vegas game as part of the Ashes, no one has said we are one up or down in the series, it is not a thing, despite initial hopes by the organisers. Ref 14 above talks about England touring Australia, not the other way round, which indicates the level of scheduling this tour ever had. If reliable, independent sources don´t treat the Vegas game, now that it has happened, as part of the Adhes nor as part of an Australian tour in England, then neither should we. The lack of new sources since the AfD shows that nothing realky has changed which would warrant recreation. Fram (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguing as if the remaining fixtures have been cancelled. If they had, your argument would have merit. Re ref 14 being a tour of Australia, subsequent references have stated a host change, that doesn't invalidate the entire article just because one thing has changed. LibStar's argument below is valid that Wikipedia doesn't do proposed events, which is why I'm changing my stance to weak keep as I still think the article is sufficiently notable regardless. Your argument ignores alot on info in referenced sources. Mn1548 (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm arguing as if the remaining fixtures have never been really scheduled in the first place, there were just vague plans but nothing concrete. Fram (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Despite no confirmation of further games" we don't create an article for an event that isn't even confirmed. The article tries to pad out content from Rugby League Las Vegas. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If AfD discussion concludes a removal from mainspace. I would suggest a redirect to Rugby League Las Vegas#2025 event as an alternative to deletion. Mn1548 (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The title "2025 Jillaroo tour of England" is not a logical search term for the Las Vegas 2025 event though. Fram (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reiss-Alexander Russell-Denny

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

unnotable football player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Possibly one for the future, I suggest moving to draft space for now. Certainly needs a little more for even WP:BASIC. Govvy (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Hasn't made his first team debut yet - could be notable in the future however. RossEvans19 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 18:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Allison (footballer)

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

Completely fails GNG. I searched the BNA and couldn't find anything on him. Dougal18 (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it should be tagged as PROD as per WP:BLPPROD. Fade258 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLPPROD only applies to living people. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am shame on myself, How do I misunderstood? Well I will be more carefull in forthcoming days. Fade258 (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played two Football League games for Gainsborough Trinity in the 1907/08 season. Debut vs Lincoln City on 7th March 1908 --Kivo (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And how does that demonstrate that they pass WP:GNG? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence they pass WP:GNG, and a reasonable WP:BEFORE has been done by the nominator. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Could be a redirect to 1907–08 Gainsborough Trinity F.C. season but that article does not exist... Giant Snowman 17:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can be written about in other articles, however his career does not appear noteworthy. Not even enough for WP:BASIC. Govvy (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Appears to fail WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, even accounting for the leeway given to players of this age. Anwegmann (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Webber

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

Non-notable footballer. Fails SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Obscure English footballer who only played in lower leagues. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stevenage Mail Centre

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

Not a notable Mail Centre. Rolluik (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. Rolluik (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regional mail centres aren't really notable, though obviously they generate a bit of news when they get restructured or closed down. Elemimele (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Jefferson

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

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

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

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

Stephanie Seungmin Kim

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

Strongly suspect this is WP:COI. New user created this page, made trivial edits to get ability to create articles, and created it.

ko:김승민 큐레이터 ("Kim Seung-min Curator") this is the corresponding article on the Korean Wikipedia; it probably should be deleted too because it's clearly COI. It was created by a "Curatorkim" user (likely Kim herself); the article was made just a few days before the enwiki version.

My guess is that Kim hired someone to write this article in English for her. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, South Korea, and United Kingdom. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 03:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COI concerns unless there are WP:RS on the issue. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 09:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mentions of her here and there, biographies on affiliated sites. No independent significant coverage. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Snowdon

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

Previous PROD (endorsed and deleted) for a subject who has no secondary sources, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR nor WP:JOURNALIST. The subject's claim to a PhD cannot be verified - I wrote to the alleged awarding institution as neither I nor others could find any PhD and the institution provided no information. The restoration of this one seems to have been an error, caught up in this mass restore of soft deleted articles [33] where discussion shows that the dePRODer intended to restore sports bios PRODed by a particular user, but included this one apprently by accident. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIRS so fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Fails all of the above. This is a waste of time. Anwegmann (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neuron (company)

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

I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV for this blockchain company, even after searching for stuff under the founders' names and different variations of the company's name. The sources are all primary sources or routine coverage in unreliable sources. Not really anything that meets WP:GNG. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and United Kingdom. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Aviation, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is based on non-reliable sources, and not a single reference appears to be strong or convincing. If anyone comes across any reliable and in-depth coverage related to this topic, please do ping me, I'd be happy to reconsider my decision. Thank you! Baqi:) (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I’ve noticed that several of the sources included incorrect or broken URLs. I’ve corrected these where possible and removed any uncredited information. I hope this helps strengthen the article. Thank you! Lexiconia (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is usually a sign that the article was written by some AI. Polygnotus (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company, does not meet WP:NCOMPANY or WP:GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Credible sources used following a third iteration and notable verified information found within the platform X (formerly twitter) Blossom Index (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- - Twitter (and other social media) is not reliable and shouldn't be used as verification. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to support WP:NCORP notability. References consist of warmed-over press releases and routine coverage (funding, partnership, etc.) An independent search failed to find non-trivial independent RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council election

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

WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL. This election is scheduled to take place in May 2026. At present, no reliable and independent sources are available regarding the event and possible candidates. The article may be recreated once sufficient verifiable information becomes available. If not deleted, the article could be redirected to Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council elections for the time being. QEnigma (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: list of Events-related deletion discussions, Politics, and England. QEnigma (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. The Walsall Council page clearly states that this election is due to take place in 2026. "The next local election will take place on 7 May 2026. It will be an "all-out" election, meaning every council seat can be contested." - Upcoming elections and legal notices | Walsall Council Owen J Webster (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@O17A03:This is a primary source. While primary sources may be used to verify certain content, maintaining an article requires the support of secondary sources that are both reliable and independent. At present, no such sources are available. That is why this article should either be deleted or redirected, as stated above. QEnigma (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is mention of the 2026 local election in the following source: https://www.expressandstar.com/news/politics/2025/06/02/walsall-councillors-bold-proposal-to-reform-local-election-system/. As referenced in the article. Owen J Webster (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@O17A03: Please refer to the criteria listed in WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT and also to WP:ROUTINE. QEnigma (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All I am saying is what more evidence do you need other than the official council site stating that elections are going ahead. Owen J Webster (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@O17A03: Reliable and independent sources on declared candidates, actual coverage of the upcoming election other than for a single primary source, etc. QEnigma (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon. No coverage of the actual election Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no significant coverage for the 2026 local election, but the '2026 United Kingdom local elections' wiki page is active. Walsall Council have already mentioned this on their 'upcoming elections' page. Upcoming elections and legal notices | Walsall Council Owen J Webster (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Park Plaza Westminster Bridge

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

No significant coverage. Aŭstriano (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, United Kingdom, and England. Aŭstriano (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ WP:MILL hotel property; the article talks more about the former 'eyesore' building occupying its plot than the actual current hotel. Nathannah • 📮 17:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gol-dangit Cunard, you did it again, you rescued another article with details about the actual buildings, with details about how an eyesore was replaced by a sterile tin can that's a competent hotel. Switching to keep. Nathannah • 📮 01:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely run of the mill hotel. The majority of the sources about this hotel are about how an eyesore of a derelict was replaced (by this sterile tin can). King Charles III shudders every time he passes by. Bearian (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Engineered constructs says:
Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

Sources
1. "Park Plaza Westminster Bridge: A claustrophobic monolith with good gadgets and bad views". The Times. 2010-05-01. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
  The review notes: "Sitting in the Primo bar of this vast new 1,021-room hotel — the biggest in London — we looked out of the window and tried to take in Big Ben at sunset. There should have been a clear view to the Houses of Parliament from the building, which resembles an enormous tenpin bowling ball with the top sliced off, and is on the roundabout site of the long-derelict former offices of the Inner London Education Authority. But despite the location just south of Westminster Bridge — we wanted to be close to the action in the run-up to the election — it was difficult to catch a glimpse of Westminster Palace, the target of Brown, Clegg and Cameron’s ambitions."
2. Coren, Giles (2010-07-03). "Giles Coren reviews Brasserie Joël, London SE1". The Times. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
  The review notes: "It’s hard to know where to start with the chop-slapping accuracy of the phrase “horrible place”. You know the roundabout on the south side of Westminster Bridge which has been a huge stinking mess of building site behind vast forbidding hoardings for about 200 years? Well, now it’s even uglier. Because what is there now is a big round black thing called the Westminster Bridge Park Plaza – although I believe they brand it “Park Plaza Westminster Bridge” to make absolutely certain you are aware it is a grand international chain, and the famous river crossing is merely tagged on as an address to help Japanese overnighters give easy directions to their taxi. This hulking carbuncstrosity – which claims (by all the gods) to be a “design-led hotel”, as if that were a positive thing in some way – is self-besplattered with enormous bill posters (which is not very “design-led” if you ask me) advertising “500 Studio Rooms ideal for families”, “Five distinctive dining and entertainment experiences”, “1,200 square-metre, pillar-free ballroom”, “31 additional meeting rooms, two executive lounges and free Wi-Fi throughout” and “Spa with eight treatment rooms and a Fitness Centre complete with 15-metre swimming pool”. Ooh, “pillar-free”. How thrilling."
3. Jeffs, Lotte (October 2010). "Hotel of the Month: Park Plaza Westminster". Diva. p. 70. ProQuest 2370993087.
  The review notes: "Westminster's Park Plaza offers all the inconspicuousness of a big city chain hotel, but with those stylish flourishes and designer details that make doing the dirty feel a little less sordid. Make sure you book a room above the fifth floor to enjoy a panoramic view of the Houses of Parliament (that other den of iniquity), the Thames and a load of little people with far less glamorous and exciting lives than yours - obviously - scurrying home to their partners over Westminster Bridge. The rooms themselves offer everything you need for a night of illicit infidelity - namely a big comfy bed, a power shower and a Do Not Disturb sign. The hotel's restaurant serves really good, elegant, first-date food (no burritos that will leave a trail of salsa down your chin and have your mistress wondering if she really is doing the wrong thing!), the lighting is flattering and the service attentive but not too much so. There's also a good-sized pool and spa at the hotel so you can feel thoroughly cleansed the morning after the night before."
4. Phillips, Jessica (2024-05-02). "The 24 best romantic hotels in London". Time Out. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
  The review notes: "Run by mammoth hotel chain Radisson, who also run the Park Inn and art 'otel brands, Park Plaza Westminster is a slick operation that also caters to the masses. With 1,023 rooms and suites, it's closer to a cruise ship than to its neighbour and rival, Premier Inn. Rooms are stripped back, with white walls and a dark wooden table making up the skeleton of the space. The minimalism is deliberate; the majority of rooms have a screensaver view of the Houses of Parliament, Big Ben and The London Eye. So close are you to the Elizabeth Tower, you might as well be reading the ten o' clock news. The hotel has a gym, pool, steam room, sauna and spa. Brasserie Joel is also a dining experience worth slowing down for. The French restaurant serves up classics like beef bourguignon, guinea fowl and French onion soup alongside an extensive wine menu."
5. Syz, Francesca (2010-07-31). "Four of the best hotels by the Thames, by Francesca Syz". The Daily Telegraph. ProQuest 734431511.
  The review notes: "After years of having to look at a monstrous office block at the centre of the roundabout just south of Westminster Bridge, we now have something new and infinitely nicer to consider - the futuristic, cylindershaped Park Plaza Westminster Bridge Hotel. Located a minute's walk from the London Eye and two minutes from the Houses of Parliament, this 1,021-room hotel is an ideal base for a sightseeing weekend in London. While not directly on the river, the hotel has uninterrupted views of Westminster Bridge. More than half the rooms have their own kitchenettes, and 27 have outdoor terraces (these rooms will open shortly). There's also a brasserie-style restaurant, a sushi bar, coffee shop and an eight-treatment-room spa with a swimming-pool and gym. While rooms with river views cannot be guaranteed, you can request one; and here's a tip - any room with the number 69 in it will have a river view (269, 369 etc). From floors two to seven, you can see Westminster Bridge, Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament; from floors eight to 12, you will see the river, too."
6. Carmichael, Sri (2009-07-22). "Super-green hotel will bottle its own brand of mineral water". Evening Standard. Factiva NS00000020090724e57m0000c. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
  The article notes: "The largest hotel ever built in London will bottle all its own water to offer guests instead of expensive mineral brands.The final beam of the £350 million Park Plaza Westminster Bridge hotel was bolted into place by Mayor Boris Johnson last night at the 'topping out' ceremony.The 1,021-room riverside hotel on the South Bank, which offers uninterrupted views of the Houses of Parliament from the former site of the Greater London Council building, will be one of the greenest in the capital once it opens early next year.The onsite water plant is expected to produce more than a million bottles of triple-filtered tap water ‹ sparkling and still ‹ each year, using 10,000 reusable sterilised bottles for the hotel's restaurants, mini-bars and spa."
7. Chesters, Laura (2010-04-16). "Check-out time at Park Plaza: Investors struggle to find mortgages for $300m hotel rooms". Property Week. Factiva CSYR000020100416e64g00002.
  The article notes: "More than 840 investors have been refused mortgages on £300m of luxury hotel rooms they were to buy at a recently completed development in central London.In 2007, investors put down deposits for rooms at the Park Plaza Westminster Bridge London, a 1,021-room apart-hotel and conference venue that opened last month.On 6 April the developer, Park Plaza, served notice to the investors to complete their purchases.Park Plaza had sold the hotel rooms off plan to private investors.The buyers agreed to pay £300,000 on average for a hotel room with the promise of a 6% annual return on their money over five years.But the downturn and the lack of bank finance means no investor has been able to secure a mortgage against the assets on a non-recourse basis."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Park Plaza Westminster Bridge to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep per the excellent WP:HEY work done. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Ealing London Borough Council election

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. QEnigma (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Kershaw

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a karateka, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing notability criteria for sportspeople. As always, sports figures are not automatically notable just for existing, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them and their accomplishments -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source content self-published by organizations he was directly affiliated with, showing no GNG-worthy reliable sourcing whatsoever, and claims absolutely nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable without proper GNG-worthy sourcing.
There's also not a single inbound link to this article from any other Wikipedia article but List of karateka -- and while that isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself, it does kind of imply something about notability if there aren't any other articles with his name in them at all. Even after doing a text search on "Dave Kershaw", every single other instance of that name in Wikipedia is referring to a yachter, a scientist or a Canadian record producer, not a karateka.
Note also prior discussion (which did pertain to this same Dave Kershaw) which landed as a delete — this was recreated four years later by a different WP:SPA with no history of editing on any other topic, the same situation as the prior deleted version, thus continuing to suggest a potential WP:COI. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant independent coverage that shows WP:GNG is met. He also fails WP:ANYBIO and I don't see any SNG that he meets. Papaursa (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sigcov in my searches so far, not opposed to draftify as ATD if any RS can still be found, on a side note an idea is to make an article about the Konjaku Shin National School of Karate he founded, which I have yet to see an existing article been made.Lorraine Crane (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Computaris

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

Non-notable company that doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Spattering of news items were about its acquisition, and nothing else of any lasting importance. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Software, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's also a COI issue, many of the edits were made by the company itself. Which is blatant advertising. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Premier League player list

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

Per WP:NOTSTATS and content forking. Given that List of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. players exists, a separate list covering just the Premier League seems unnecessary. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. players – It can be a section within the main article. Svartner (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR, NOSTATS, and do not merge or redirect. The original list needs an overhaul and much better prose, no need to have another list to manage. Govvy (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment umm GiantSnowman I don't know if you want to rewrite that, as the article is completely sourced and full of citations! Govvy (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
umm Govvy please read what I wrote. I did not say the article was unsourced. I said there were no sources showing significant coverage. Giant Snowman 10:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Again this is not an issue of notability! You continue to post the exact same post on different AfDs, you do realise you need to sometimes tailer what you write. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is 100% an issue of notability, that is the only reason why we are here... Giant Snowman 10:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe how wrong you are, and you call yourself an admin. :/ Govvy (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - do not merge with List of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. players. That list is restricted to notable Spurs players. Maybe the definition of what consitututes a notable Spurs player needs a tiny bit of finessing but there's certainly no way someone like Jamie Slabber should be merged onto the list based on his eleven minutes of play in the Premier League -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—No reason to merge. This is repetitive, poorly done, and fails WP:NOTSTATS. Anwegmann (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Heaven

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most sources self-published; & thats pretty much all a search throws up. TheLongTone (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some mention in trade publications [34]... Sourcing now in the article is primary or non-RS. I don't see enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete Seems like a very run-of-the-WP:MILL business. It would need some claim out of the ordinary, and sourcing to back that up. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:NCORP, Content generated by AI (WP:LLM). Baqi:) (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parkers Pharma Limited

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

Generously, I can find no independent evidence that this company is notable in Wikipedia's sense. I find only the typical press-release type articles in sources that advertise new products when prompted by businesses, or announce business decisions based on releases from businesses. Slightly less generously, the article has items that fail verification, which suggests exaggeration or fantasy. Totally ungenerously, this is a business whose UK companies house records suggest is barely active and rather small. Google searches for the business find its social media sites (Facebook etc.) and nothing else. Google searches for its products find the products of other companies, not its own. The company has an impressive-seeming website but I only found the website via our Wikipedia article, and much of the text on individual products purportedly supplied by this company is actually word-for-word identical to text on other companies' sites. The company's website has an extensive catalogue of products, but no online shop, just a download our app option, and a generic send us a message. This is jut not normal behaviour for companies. They either make something that's not sold directly (in which case they don't have an app), or they make something and sell it (in which case they have an obvious way to buy). The whole thing doesn't add up. Ungenerously, I think we have to consider the possibility that this business is little more than a fantasy, a website and a companies house record. Disclosure, I met it via the AfD for its director, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wathek Zair. Elemimele (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, the weak only because I do not normally review companies so I am less confident of my expertise here. Similar to the nom, there are a lot of disturbing details. One I noticed before is the claimed co-founder "Sir William Howard" who I cannot find anywhere (see Howard family), so I marked him as failing verification. Similar disclosure; I also met this article via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wathek Zair. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe company has invented notable drugs and covered with significant sensed articles which are independent of the subject. CresiaBilli (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The current version of the article includes only unreliable sources such as b2bstars.com, tracxn.com, and alnabtah-alkhadra.com, none of which meet the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP. These sources do not establish the company's notability in any meaningful or verifiable way. Baqi:) (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV so as to establish notability through WP:NCORP, only thinly glossed press releases. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba Mitchell

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

Doesn't appear to have played in a competitive fixture for a fully professional team yet, or made any international appearances. Uhooep (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Uhooep (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Per WP:TOOSOON. RossEvans19 (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added four new sources 1, 2, 3 and 4, to confirm notability.FNH004 (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify He'd soon have his debut for the BD national team but till then just draftify it. X (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Probably one for the future, still needs to play and GNG is a bit of a way off at the moment. Govvy (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 09:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft per above. Raihanur (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify at the very least. I'd even lean toward delete, but I'll go with the flow. Obviously WP:TOOSOON. Anwegmann (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tas Qureshi

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

Prod that was redirected to Robert Braithwaite (engineer). I don't think it is appropriate to redirect to 1 of his patients even if notable. Braithwaite's article doesn't even mention Qureshi. Article subject fails WP:BIO. An orphan article. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and England. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Here are the sources I could find [35], [36], [37], [38], and [39]. These are mainly database entries that prove he exist, some with a small bio but they can't be independent. I couldn't verify the majority of the sources or claims presently in the article and most that I could open were not BLP quality. Moritoriko (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article as it stands is not in good shape - most of the sources are 404 not found, which is not helpful. I am still doing WP:BEFORE, and it may help other editors participating in this AfD to also search for the subject under his full name Tahseen Qureshi (as, for example, here) under which name many of his academic papers appear. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cascades Shopping Centre

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Town (Colchester ward)

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

I do not believe that it has ever been the intention of Wikipedia to raise to article levels minor electoral areas in local government as such. Obviously a ward may encompass an area such as a village that is relevant in and of itself, but in this case, it is simply a collation of electoral results, which is by no means significant coverage. Kevin McE (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with clear precedent. There are thousands of electoral constituency articles on Wikipedia of all types and AFDs have routinely return Keep results. This article is well written and sourced. MRSC (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For national election constituencies, that is true. But this is only for electing local government. Such wards do not see news articles speculating about who might win, or possible candidates. Those elected are unlikely to ever generate GNG coverage such as would lead to them getting an article. It is a very different scale than a constituency for national government.

If this is to be retained, does that mean that we ought to have a goal of creating articles for all 8,694 such wards in th UK? Not to mention equivalents worldwide. Kevin McE (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to City of Colchester. Local city ward lacks notability and fails GNG. There is no precedent or basis for any suggestion that constituencies are automatically notable, particularly at the local level with only a few thousand voters. Most of the other thousands of articles are at the national or regional level and are substantially larger entities (and many of them should also be deleted or merged). The suggestion that the article is well-sourced is simply laughable, the only sources are simple election results data for the council, nothing remotely resembling significant coverage. We are not a database for every minor election result without context. Reywas92^Talk 03:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to City of Colchester; it's just a local ward. No inherent notability and no SIGCOV. The electoral records can be linked form the main page. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would be merged? Are you proposing that the article for the city should have every result of every ward election since the area became a local authority? Or that this one ward somehow gets exceptional treatment? Kevin McE (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the prose (about five lines), and link the tables of results. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying, but why would the City of Colchester article be improved by having some trivial data about a former ward, while a couple of dozen other former and current wards do not have the same details given? Or why the results of this one (former) ward should be preserved and reported while those of the others are not? Kevin McE (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be crying into my beer if this article is deleted, but WP:ATD states that "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page" and WP:ATD-M that "articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles". So my reply is based on the deletion policy.

Speaking of which: per below, instructions for multiple-article AfDs are at WP:BUNDLE. Hope this helps. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By no means intended as an attack on you, but I think it is a huge flaw of the deletion system that an instruction gets sent to a talk page telling editors there that material from another article is to be incorporated into it, with no consideration of whether it is appropriate or proportionate, often when there has been no awareness on the part of the editors committed to the target page that such a thing is under discussion. It comes across (again, by no means intending this as personal to you) as an extraordinary systemic arrogance that one part of Wikipedia tells another what it must do with no consultation at all.

But that is a bigger issue than the article at hand.

Thanks to the signposting to WP:Bundle, but that doesn't seem to deal with later additions to an AfD, so I'll see what happens here, then propose it if there is (what seems to me) a suitable outcome here. Kevin McE (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the method is for turning a simple AfD into a multiple article AfD, but anything that can be said about this article seems likely equally true of Castle (Colchester ward). And if both of those are deleted, I would suggest that Template:Electoral wards in the City of Colchester, being then is void, should equally be removed. Kevin McE (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Hayes (adventurer)

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

Self-promotional article, subject does not meet notability standards. Article was created and heavily edited by user RowenaFernandes, who was banned for advertising and COI. All significant subsequent edits and expansions (most of them unsourced) came from a succession of accounts whose only contributions are on this article, likely to circumvent the initial ban. These accounts include 112.203.124.109, Litolividomaliwat, Service pa, Erictobeprecise, and Sonia.sherif. The attempts at ban evasion and COI/self-promotion should be enough for deletion, but the subject also has received no coverage besides a handful of low quality and self-published sources. A very niche Guinness World Record held briefly almost 20 years ago does not in itself establish notability. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 11:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 11:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've searched and added a ref, but overall don't think there is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, so don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is material for a personal blog, not for wikipedia. InaRoed (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. These sockpuppet's edit histories are very revealing! NoSlacking (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alerted to this a few days ago, which I find a bit bizarre given the page has been published without comment / warning for 15 odd years - and only after a couple of new inputs from someone on my recent summitting of Mt Kanchenjunga appeared. References to all my work are everywhere online and I have little idea of inputters / input bans and other 'warning' comments. 2A00:23C7:F883:F201:5B4:B60E:DE2:73B5 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wathek Zair

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

Unnotable scientist who fails WP:G, WP:NPROF and/or WP:SIGCOV with a low h-factor and no awards. Page is full of WP:Peacock with dubious claims, self-published work and refences to vanity articles. Novice editor has repeatedly removed maintenance tags, ignored review suggestions and restored to main after draftification. I see no way to repair this article, time to delete it. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Science, and England. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic seems notable in his field. He invented and introduced few drugs and founder of a pharmaceutical company. Passes WP:BASIC. CresiaBilli (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refrain from duplicating your identical content beneath all my votes and comments.CresiaBilli (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think; I'm not convinced that his own publications are sufficient for NPROF #C1, or that he's got sufficient independent sourcing to satisfy GNG. Google Scholar messes up and returns the publications of a wide range of other people, which isn't helping. I'm also very unconvinced that his company Parkers Pharma Limited (which claims to make rodenticides) is itself notable. At least its UK activities seem to be a very small micro-company with few employees, and a google search finds only its social media activities, not its products. Searching for the actual products advertised on our Parkers Pharma article or on the company's website (taken from our article) similarly finds unrelated topics. This just isn't normal for a company claiming to have customers in 35+ countries and a wide range of products. The text associated with the products is largely identical to that of PelGar products. I am smelling rats. Elemimele (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele, a good point about his GS_profile. Since he created it, it is his responsibility to purge citations from it that are incorrect, some happen. However, this does look like a deliberately misleading profile. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Laura240406 (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article reads like a CV (WP:Peacock), sources in general do not support claims made (WP:V - a few publications on the same topic don't support a claim of "substantial contributions," particularly when it looks like all the papers were sourced from the single PhD thesis), and the pharma company appears to be a [minor family business] with 10 employees and no assets.

Crmccull000 (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Crmccull000 has total edit count 28 and registered account on 28 May, 2025. specially came here for adding his first Delete vote here. Seems like a puppet of an experienced user.CresiaBilli (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Copyedits to the article were suggested as a "new user task" and I saw the deletion discussion banner. Disregard my argument if you think it has no merit, but don't resort to ad hominem. Crmccull000 (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the correct explanation which is asked above from you. I smell you are a sock of nominator Ldm1954. Neo9812 (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Neo9812, please do not make accusations like this without evidence. The explanation provided is completely appropriate, and indicates careful analysis. I request that you apologies to @Crmccull000. My skin is tough enough that I will ignore your comment. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to add to Ldm1954's considered nomination. SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The delete votes here are not strong due to lack of resource analysis. As an inventor and scientist Mr. Zair is notable who meets Wikipedia's Notability Standards for a scientist. Neo9812 (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist. Let's analyze the references in the article one at a time and compare to WP:RS, WP:INDY, and WP:V guidelines.
1. Sales pitch for Parker's Pharma product. Not independent, not reliable.
2. Same as 1, different product. Not independent, not reliable.
3. Appears to be a press release - no indication of interview with subject or critical coverage. Not independent, not reliable.
4. Self-authored registry entry. Not independent, not reliable.
5. Unable to substantiate, may be OK (supporting section may be in the Arabic portion).
6. Brief, self-authored newsletter article (appears to be based on PhD work, see 7). Not independent for information regarding the author.
7. PhD thesis (self-authored). Not independent for information regarding the author.
8. Journal article (self-authored, based on PhD thesis, see p. 6 of thesis). Not independent for information regarding the author.
9. Points back to the same thesis as 7 - not sure why it is listed twice. Not independent for information regarding the author.
10. Storage stability test data and materials certification for one of Parker Pharma's products. Does not support the cited claim (appears to show Zair as an employee of a pest control manufacturer? See page 2). Irrelevant reference.
11. Self-authored book, published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing, a suspected predatory publisher. Figures at minimum are generated by AI - see for example pdf page 17 of the referenced sample. Not independent for information regarding the author, not reliable.
With the possible exception of ref. 5, which I am unable to verify due to unfamiliarity with the language, none of the numbered references can be considered WP:SIGCOV. Crmccull000 (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will Crewdson

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

This guitarist fails WP:NBIO with no coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Previous prod has been contested by IP 2.96.203.211 at WP:REFUND. GTrang (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are more substantial independent references (ie not interviews or put out as press releases) online now. There are these: https://usrockermusic.com/2017/07/06/a-redwood-weekend-the-glam-skanks-will-crewdson-the-sloths-and-the-schizophonics-rip-it-up-in-dtla/ https://freshonthenet.co.uk/2014/10/mixtape20141013/ https://totalrock.com/rachel-stamp-live-at-the-02-islington-glam-punk-rock-at-its-finest/ Also not very substantial coverage at https://bigtakeover.com/concerts/AdamAntVicTheatreChicagoILSeptember72019 and https://usrockermusic.com/2024/05/09/adam-ant-and-the-english-beat-give-lessons-in-showmanship-at-the-greek-in-la/ Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Will Crewdson has some reliable coverage from independent music outlets like US Rocker Music and Fresh on the Net. These sources, while not mainstream, provide significant coverage to meet WP:NBIO.Primpzetad (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is support for Keeping this article but a source analysis would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This guitarist meets WP:GNG backed with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.CresiaBilli (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Edwards (Australian composer)

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

This Article relies so much on unreliable sources and no improvement have been made, I was thinking I could find a source with independent coverage but I couldn’t find, The subject has contributed in many field of entertainment yet fails to have WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:MUSICBIO, fails WP:GNG per no particularly article that speaks about him independently on multiple secondary sources, most of the citations are either usercreated space under a music website where he has listed his musical works. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 12:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 12:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Theatre, Advertising, Germany, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wilson (author, pastor)

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

Non-notable biography with no coverage in independent sources that fails NAUTHOR. Most coverage is primary and awards do not arise to the significance of ANYBIO. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and England. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Weakly squeaks by on WP:AUTHOR I think. I've added reviews of his books to the article, not all of his books are even listed yet or all of the reviews. Article should probably be moved to "Andrew Wilson (pastor)" rather than using a double disambiguator. Jahaza (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Christianity.com article[40] appears to be an independent source. The site is owned by Salem Media Group. Jahaza (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the additional references addeed to the article including multiple reviews of his works in reliable sources so that WP:NAUTHOR is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree he meets WP:AUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This author meets WP:NAUTHOR. His books reviewed by many reviewers such as John Watkins. CresiaBilli (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Island (UK amusement park)

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

Virtually unsourced, with the only non-database source in the article being about court proceedings for a nearby accident and not providing WP:SIGCOV for the park at all.

A WP:BEFORE gives me the Daily Mail, a park of the same name in Essex, and another article about the Essex park. Also a local newspaper which could be interesting if it wasn't just two paragraphs of paraphrasing the placement of a Lincolnshire park in a blog's UK top 10. And another interview in a local newspaper.

Of everything I found, this might be the closest to SIGCOV, but it is heavily quote-based and also from the aforementioned local newspaper. Nothing that makes it look like Fantasy Island is passing WP:GNG, or that it is even the most notable Fantasy Island UK amusement park. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and United Kingdom. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can find this article about the park being bought, but it's fairly routine stuff. Nothing that makes me feel this park is enough to pass GNG, so delete, albeit it is a weak one. CoconutOctopus talk 21:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I think it's probably possible to scrounge up something from the few good sources there are. It might not be comprehensive but it can probably be improved enough to not need to be deleted. I can start working on it. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have rewritten the page based on available sources. I think it's start-class at this point and I don't think it needs to be deleted now. I'm changing my vote from weak keep to keep. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has received a hefty makeover since being nominated, I will dish out a round of pings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 23:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby@CoconutOctopus Thoughts on the current version of the article? Toadspike [Talk] 23:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's now enough to meet GNG, so changing to keep. CoconutOctopus talk 19:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After the rewrite by @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan , the article has enough RS with 4 BBC News articles plus local ones. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Yang

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

Refs do not pass WP:SIRS, so this does not pass WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression he passed WP:NACTOR, with at least two notable roles (a main role in a miniseries and a lead role in a film + a further upcoming project). However, if I was mistaken, then it's a case of WP:TOSOON and I would support redirecting to Last Days (2025 film) for now. Starklinson (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to clarify, my vote is keep (for passing WP:NACTOR) or if not, redirect (for being WP:TOOSOON). Starklinson (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: Source 8 is a RS, but it's rather thin. Source 12 is also a RS, but isn't just about this individual. Those are all I can find as well... Would likely pass ACTOR, but we need sourcing... Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Bickerton

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

I could not find any evidence that this is a notable musician, seems to be a self-published artist who hasn't received significant attention from reliable sources so far. Fram (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Fram (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true if you search and read about Alucidnation which is his Allias, you will find alot of refernces and articles about him. he has also appeared on the Grand Theft Auto IV game sound track. i have seen many articles on Wikipedia about music producers who hardly have any credbility compared to this producer. please do your research. i also have added more links to this producer. Manunited20 (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you identify better sources and add them to the article to demonstrate the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria. As a general rule at least WP:THREE are recommended. To assist - I have identified two EP reviews from a reliable source (Muzik): 2001 and 2003. There is also an Irish Times album review on ProQuest 309867414. I !vote Draftify as there is potential here. ResonantDis_tortion 15:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for assisting, i have added the sources on the discography of the artist. if you can identify more reliable sources and help edit the page in any way, that would be appreciated. Manunited20 (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The release blurbs in Muzik help towards establishing notability, but a lot of the current references do not. If notable, no need to put into draft purgatory, just add more sources in reliable publications if they exist.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

Joni Ayton-Kent

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

A young actor making her way on stage and in film, but yet to break through with starring roles in major productions. There are many citations, but these support the a play or film, and Ayton-Kent isn't the focus of them. WP:TOOSOON. Klbrain (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough good roles for NACTOR. As Jo Eaton-Kent they had a significant role in The Watch ("But Eaton-Kent is excellent and the character works on their own terms." Lloyd, Robert (5 January 2021), "The colorful world of 'The Watch'", Los Angeles Times) and in Don't Forget the Driver [41]. Also on stage in A Christmas Carol: A Ghost Story [42] (As Joni Ayton-Kent in the televised version [43]). On stage Treasure Island panto got multiple reviews ("Although every character’s performance was terrific, Joni Ayton-Kent's performance of four characters stood out for me." Lloyd, Robert (7 December 2022), "Hall for Cornwall's Christmas pantomime Treasure Island is 'ansome!", Falmouth Packet. "while Joni Ayton-Kent is an inspired (and quietly revolutionary) choice for the joint female leads of Billie Bones and Benji Gunn, getting the crowd involved with some lung-busting Freddie Mercury-inspired 'day-ohs'." Trewhela, Lee (12 December 2022), "Treasure Island - the panto that's still not quite a panto with Cornwall as its star - When In The Ghetto is rewritten as In The Kernow, you know you're in panto land", CornwallLive.) Prince also got multiple reviews (Iftikhar, Asyia (21 September 2022), "The Prince review: Abigail Thorn's debut play reinvents Shakespeare with a queer, trans twist", Pink News. Gaian, Kestral (20 September 2022), "The Prince review; Abigail Thorn's wonderful debut as playwright", Trans Writes. Marcolina, Cindy (20 September 2022), "Review: THE PRINCE, Southwark Playhouse", Broadway World.) The Welsh debut of Revolt. She Said. Revolt Again. aslo got coverage and they played a major role. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the complete analysis by duffbeerforme is correct. Here is my counter analysis: [44]-This is not even the passing mentions. You can not find her name. [45] - Again i am unable to find her name here. [46]- This is only credit of minor role, no in-depth coverage. [47]-She played a minor role among four characters, No Independent. [48] - A minor role in the same play 'Treasure Island'. [49] - This is the review of a play where she has a minor role. Not a reliable source. [50]- Again this is the review of a play where she has not major role. [51] - Review of the same play 'The Prince' not reliable, no in-depth.CresiaBilli (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, she is also now starring in the European production of Hadestown at the Royal Theater Carré in Amsterdam, which just appeared on the Eva Jinek talk show on Dutch television channel NPO 1. Campvamp69 (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we please get an analysis of duffbeerforme's sources from someone who is not closely connected to the subject?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 22:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom this topic is WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:GNG. CresiaBilli (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per duffbeerforme as subject has enough discussion in independent secondary reliable sources of her roles in multiple stage performances and shows to meet WP:NACTOR #1 although not GNG. Nnev66 (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Clarke (footgolf)

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

Non-notable footgolf player. The article was AI-generated and included multiple hallucinated citations that have been removed. What's left doesn't support notability under WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT; references are affiliated with him (his Facebook or his talent agency), or they are from official leagues and thus also not secondary coverage. I found one instance of WP:SIGCOV in my before search (Daily Record), but the rest of the coverage I found was WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If this page is ultimately deleted, I would like to request userification so I can continue working on it in my userspace. Thank you.
Wq4m820 (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with work) - Some independent coverage exists, Gulf Today (2023 Sharjah win), GolfNews Vietnam (2025 Vietnam Open), ITV News Meridian (UK team victory), and Hemel Today (2017 Player of the Year), but most is event-specific. May fall short of WP:GNG due to limited sustained, in-depth WP:SIGCOV. Wq4m820 (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Today is a single mention, GolfNews Vietnam appears to be routine match coverage, ITV is a trivial mention, and the Hemel Today piece appears to be a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE based solely on an interview with Clarke (and I would question the independence of an article that ends The Berkhamsted man is looking for help with sponsorship. If you can assist, email bencl***@gmail.com. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a Inside.FIFA.com piece on him and Daily Record source helps meet WP:NATHLETE (under WP:NSPORT) notability requirement of 'one significant, independent source' for the Ben Clarke (footgolf) page Wq4m820 (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA is not an independent source on footgolf players. Moreover, the requirement for one significant, independent source under WP:NSPORT is a baseline requirement without which athlete biographies may be returned to draftspace, but WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT require SIGCOV in multiple independent sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Grosvenor Light Opera Company (via WP:PROD on 22 March 2025)

Northern Ireland

Kevin Coen

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

Another Vintagekits hagiography of an individual who lacks WP:SIGCOV. This was a man at the lower end of the IRA food chain whose only claim to fame is getting killed by an undercover soldier in a shoot-out.

Sourcing of the article is poor, and although Coen is described in some quality publications, these are almost all passing mentions of the circumstances of his death. Leonstojka (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland. Leonstojka (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Fleming (Irish republican)

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

Similar to my nomination for Charles Breslin, this is another IRA biography of someone who seems to only attract coverage for his death in a particular incident involving undercover soldiers. The description and debate surrounding the manner of his killing could easily be reflected in other articles. Leonstojka (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland. Leonstojka (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the nomination, it is suggested that the main topic here (the subject's death) "could easily be reflected in other articles". Seeming to imply, if I'm reading the nom correctly, a possible merge/redirect option as WP:ATD. What target is proposed? Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland? Or elsewhere? (I ask mainly as, while I think I understand the reason for the nomination, I personally can't support deletion. Not when, it seems, the nomination itself suggests that alternatives to deletion are available? ...) Guliolopez (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article itself should be deleted and perhaps some content (the details of the killing itself, judicial review) salvaged for other articles. This is a different thing to the Charles Breslin nomination, because here there isn't really an obvious destination to merge/redirect into. Is there a more typical process for these kinds of situations? Should I have just opened a discussion about merging/redirecting on the article talkpage?

As you said, Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland is one merge possibility, and so is 14 Intelligence Company (it should be noted that, contrary to the outdated article, Fleming was not killed by the SAS), but I just don't see how a standalone page on this person can be justified (it's one of many Troubles related biographies that are basically 'man joins IRA, gets shot by undercover soldiers, the end'), with the contents dominated by whether or not his death was legally sound (although, it has to be said, some don't even do this much: see my nomination of Kevin Coen). There are IRA figures like Ivor Bell who easily pass WP:SIGCOV, but gunmen like Fleming don't meet that threshold IMO. Leonstojka (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Breslin

AfDs for this article:

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

Individual notable for being involved in a single incident during the Troubles and the allegations concerning his death. This is a 2006 article from the days when quality control was somewhat loose (the username of the creator is hardly encouraging in that respect).

The content could easily be moved into other articles e.g. Strabane ambush, Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland. Leonstojka (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Northern Ireland. Leonstojka (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Strabane ambush. If the subject is primarily notable (which appears to be the case) for the SAS attack/ambush in which he died, then any related detail can be covered in the title which covers those events. Along with the other two people who died in that incident. There doesn't appear to be any reason to have a standalone title. Per WP:MERGEREASON and WP:1E and related guidelines/conventions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this isn't information about the ambush, but about him. I don't think the biographical info here could be added to the Strabane ambush - that would expand that article with an emphasis on him beyond his part in the ambush, which would change the point of view. (It seems that there is less info about the two brothers, but that makes sense because Breslin had the rank of Commander.) I have found a few additional mentions in books here and here but will do some more searching. Lamona (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Scotland

Lorne Maclaine, Baron of Moy

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

Minor nobility? figure, has not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." to pass WP:BIO WP:GNG Suggest redirect to Clan Maclaine of Lochbuie Nayyn (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and United Kingdom. Nayyn (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellycrak88 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Africa and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage at all outside of Burke's Peerage, which includes more than 100,000 living people - clearly not enough to fulfil WP:GNG. Even a redirect seems generous. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 21:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Rothes (Baronage of Scotland)

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

From my research, this seems to be a paid-for "title" sold by a variety of 'heritage' companies. The article creates a deliberate confusion with the Earl of Rothes, which is a real heriditary title in the Peerage of Scotland. The article implies there was somehow a split between the "peerage" title and the "feudal" title of Earl of Rothes, which would allow the "feudal" title to be bestowed on someone else. No source is given for that claim.

The current "holder" of the title is supposedly a guy with Swiss and Antigua & Barbuda citizenship with a peacock article, a bunch of other weird awards and titles, and no connections to Scotland whatsoever.

The article itself wasn't created until December 2024 by the account Royalorders whose main task seems to be to anchor the claim into a variety of Wiki pages.

I can find no reliable sources that back up the claim that this title even exists, how and why it's different from the established Earl of Rothes, and who the current "holder" is. The only consistent source is a list from registryofscotsnobility.com, a nondescript and unverifiable website without listed owners or administrators, and which is likely just another forum for those who bought these kinds of titles. It's also noteworthy that the public agenda of the next meeting of the 'Registry of Scots Nobility' specifically mentions the creation of Wikipedia pages of their 'titles' as a success. All looks very fishy to me. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 11:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Scotland. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 11:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Earl of Rothes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD article just uses bits of the Earl of Rothes article, and then argues that the (Baronage of Scotland) title is different from the 'normal' Earl of Rothes. The latter is alive and well and holds the title, as you can see in the main article. So unless the merged article should say that two different people (the "Earl of Rothes" and the "Earl of Rothes (Baronage of Scotland)") hold the same title, there's nothing to merge. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 16:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a made up in one day distinction. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
see my comment below Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The title exists (non-peerage in the baronage of Scotland) and was recognised by Lord Lyon, officer of the crown and the monarch's representative in Scotland: Sir Philip Christopher Ondaatje was infeft as at 26th November 2004 in “All and Whole the lands and other heritages forming the barony and territorial lordship of Leslie and the territorial earldom of Rothes together with the territorial office of Sheriff of Fife”, and was designed by Lyon Blair by Warrant dated 5th September 2006 (amended from 6th December 2005) Court of Lord Lyon

KEEP In addition to what Kellycrack88 said, the existence, validity, and ownership of the title are confirmed by: 1) Crown Charter of Confirmation dated October 19, 1859. NAS Ref. C2/262/No. 4/Folio 8; 2) Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, Section 63; 3) Certificate of Registration issued by the Scottish Barony Register (which is the only document that is taken into consideration by the Lord Lyon); 4) The mention of the title and its holder in Debretts (which requires proof of title for inclusion in its list) Royalorders (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baronage of Scotland, no need for a separate article for something that exists but isn't notable at all. These titles don't have a real history (the actual notable title with history is the other Earl of Rothes) and aren't an honour or distinction but something you can simply buy and get registered. Fram (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes by only if the existing holder sells - I believe there are only about half a dozen scottish baronial earldoms in existence so its very rare if to be able to buy one - and Lord Lyon only grants arms to a virtuous and deserving individuals i.e. no criminal record or history that could bring the baronage into disrepute etc. Also a very interesting development is that the Baronage of Scotland Association has The Pledge an initiative that coverts these titles in a lifelong, hereditary honour rather than a temporary office that can be sold -- and binds the baron to a Baronial Code of Honour, allegiance to the crown, and paying a tithe to charity, if they get a criminal record as judged by their fellow barons they lose recognition of their title on the Roll. Anyway, I'm happy with what you propose Fram as yes the history should not be copy and paste of the peerage. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram @Royalorders Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Lord Lyon only grants arms to a virtuous and deserving individuals" I'm sorry, that's bullshit. "no criminal record or history that could bring the baronage into disrepute" is 99% of the population. That that charity now proposed some non-binding, voluntary "pledge" for members (where barons don't need to be members at all in the first place) is of no value in general and certainly not for this AfD. Fram (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram@Kellycrak88
The non-peerage title of Earl of Rothes actually has its own separate history from the peerage title beginning on October 19, 1959, the date of the Crown Charter of Confirmation that I mentioned above.

Parliament, in passing the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, in Section 63 sought to guarantee the right to bear the non-peerage title, recognizing in it a cultural historical value.

Can we supersede the assessment already made by parliament and consider these titles of no value? No, in my opinion.

We need to distinguish the notability of the non-peerage title (which is given by the history of its grant and its successors) from the notability of its current holder. The latter is not relevant to our considerations.

However, it should be remembered that some of these non peerage titles even belong to Prince Williams or King Charles.

The fact that these non peerage titles can be transferred to third parties is not decisive. In Germany and other countries there have been several cases of nobles agreeing to adopt aspirants to their title in exchange for many millions. None of this detracts from the notability of the transferred title.

The question also remains whether it is useful and appropriate for non-peerage titles to have their own page. In my opinion, yes, if there is a clear and unambiguous statement on the page that the title has nothing to do with the peerage title. In my view, creating a page dedicated to a non-peerage title, with the clarification just mentioned, serves precisely to avoid confusion of the two titles, as well as to recognize the historical and cultural dignity of both.

Royalorders (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any independent sources about this specific title? That is, sources independent from the holders and from the grantibg authorities? Have e.g. any newspapers given significant attention to this newish title? That´s the kind of thing we need to establish WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram A secondary source that mentions the creation of the title in 1859? Difficult and unnecessary. You probably won't even find a secondary source that mentions the creation of the peerage title itself in 1458. What is certain is that the article on the peerage title of Earl of Rothes does not mention any secondary sources other than Debretts and Burke’s. However, Debretts (together with the certificate of registration in the SBR) is also mentioned on the page subject to this AfD. It is difficult to understand this disparity in requirements.

The Crown Charter of Confirmation of 1859 s a public document and is accessible to the public, which is sufficient to prove that the title has its own history and dignity. A historical fact attested to in official documents has inherent notability. Royalorders (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:N. That is not the way notability is determined on Wikipedia. And no, thexsource doesn´t have to be from the time it was created, any time since then will do. But it has to be independent and about the title, not just mentioning it. Fram (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Fram they are nearly always right Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram interestingly there are seven baronage earldoms in the Baroange of Scotland (Arran, Breadalbane, Crawfurd-Lindsay, Errol, Nithsdale, Rothes, Wigtoun), one baronage marquisate (Huntly) and one baronage dukedom (Hamilton), all held in baroneum, where there is entitlement. Of these, four of the earldoms are extant, two are unclaimed, one is in dispute, the marquisate is extant held by a non-peer and the dukedom is held by a senior member of the Scottish peerage. Such nobles bear the honorific "The Much Honoured" (The Much Hon.) for distincting from honorifics attaching to peers of the realm. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re your BS comment please kindly see: On behalf of The Sovereign, the Lord Lyon King of Arms exercises the Royal Prerogative committed to him by the Acts of 1672 cap. 47 and 1867 30 & 31 Vict. Cap. 17, to grant Arms to “virtuous and well deserving persons”. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wales

Others

Penystrywad (via WP:PROD on 31 March 2025)
Morgan ap Pasgen (via WP:PROD on 31 March 2025)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Halsbury's Laws of England. Fourth Edition. Reissue. Butterworths. London. 1995. Volume 44(1). Note 3 to paragraph 1227 at page 725.

[:7-2] Farmer, Lindsay (2000). "Reconstructing the English Codification Debate: The Criminal Law Commissioners, 1833-45". Law and History Review. 18 (2): 397–425. doi:10.2307/744300. ISSN 0738-2480. JSTOR 744300.

[1]

[2]

United Kingdom

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

England

Others

Northern Ireland

Others

Scotland

Others

Wales

Others