Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

WP:DELSORT/ENGLAND

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|England|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to England. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to UK.

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

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:English Wikipedians' notice board

Scan for England related AfDs

Scan for England related Prods
Scan for England related TfDs

England

Sabrina Lund

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. No significant and reliable coverage of this author or the book mentioned in the article. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 02:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator:

Keep – I believe the article on Sabrina Lund should be kept. It meets the criteria under WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG — she's a published novelist with real-world literary engagement and multiple independent sources discussing her work in depth.

There are three detailed reviews from reliable, editorially independent sources:

BookLife (via Publishers Weekly) called her novel "a thunderous crescendo and shocking ending," and praised the pacing and anticipation for future works.
Review Tales discussed deeper themes like power, corruption, and emotional realism: "The novel masterfully explores the complexity of power—how it can corrupt, liberate, or destroy."
Readers’ Favorite gave a strong endorsement too: "A must-read that oozes with romantic appeal... will, beyond all doubt, entice fans of historical and political thrillers."

On top of that, she’s been invited to speak at Portsmouth BookFest in 2026 and has a signing scheduled at Cobbett Road Library, part of Southampton Libraries, in summer 2025. Those are both independent, public literary events.

The article has been improved recently with clearer structure, citations, and a cleaned-up tone. It’s factual, neutral, and verifiable — and I think it clearly passes notability for a contemporary author.

Happy to help improve it further if needed, but I don't think deletion is the right call here.

Michael Psaila (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are not considered reliable because they cannot be easily verified. And they definitely cannot count toward notability. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 04:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator:

Thanks for your feedback. I wanted to clarify an error and reinforce the basis for notability.

The citation for the BookLife review was mistakenly pointing to a Goodreads mirror. This has now been corrected — it links directly to the full editorial review hosted on BookLife.com, which is an editorial arm of Publishers Weekly. These reviews are professionally written and subject to editorial oversight. By Wikipedia standards, this qualifies as a reliable, independent source offering non-trivial coverage.

Per WP:AUTHOR, a writer is presumed notable if they receive multiple, independent reviews that go beyond trivial mention — especially from reliable sources. Between:

- The BookLife (Publishers Weekly) review

- The in-depth critique from Review Tales

- The full-length independent analysis from Readers’ Favorite

...there is substantial, critical third-party coverage of Sabrina Lund’s work.

In addition, she was featured on two independent UK radio stations — Awaaz FM and Fiesta FM — in publicly available interviews that discussed both her book and broader authorial perspective. These interviews offer additional evidence of notability and coverage by independent media.

Happy to keep improving the article if needed. But in its current form, I believe it clearly meets the criteria under WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG.

Michael Psaila (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the reviews are professionally written does not matter if the reviews are not neutral. Sources have to conform to the neutral point of view policy. The source you pointed out, BookLife.com [1], describes Sabrina Lund's book as follows: This is a rich depiction of the lives of 18th century England’s high society, as well as a thoughtful study on the hunger for power that drives many to destruction... This is not neutral writing. jeyranmain.com and readersfavorite.com suffer the same problem too. jeyranmain.com [2] describes the book as follows: Consequence of Power: Isabella’s Season by Sabrina Lund is a captivating historical fiction novel that immerses readers in the opulence and intrigue of 18th-century London... And readersfavorite.com [3] writes: This intriguing historical novel intertwines a beautiful tapestry of social interpretation, suspense, and romance. Sabrina Lund masterfully explores the intricacies of...

These claims of rich, captivating, intriguing writing are, one, not neutral, and, two, not verifiable. All together, these make the reviews unreliable sources to based Sabrina Lund's notability on. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 10:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does a review have to be neutral if it's in a RS? Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Denmark, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, based on dodgy sourcing, it is nothing but promotion for a non-notable author by a SPA with an undeclared COI. Googling "Sabrina Lund Michael Psaila" gives joint hits. Editor should be warned on top of the delete. Ostalgia (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Maybe one good review per the discussion above, but I don't see any others. Gscholar and Gnews are bring up nothing. Gsearch only brings up the various places to buy the books. I don't see author notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jaden Heskey

(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. Uhooep (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Not a bad start, somewhat tabloid in sources, a little short for general GNG for me. But when he has a proper debut and a little more talked about him I am sure it will be fine. Govvy (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 18:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett James

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this BLP about an actor, and moved two external links to references in the article. These are only mentions of his name in credits, however, and I have not found significant coverage to add. He does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST. He has been a producer on films which have won awards, and has won a stage award, the ADA Award, but these don't appear to be notable awards, and I can't find significant coverage of him in the context of them. The refs before I added two were to IMDb, Wikipedia, and two film festivals, which does not meet WP:THREE. Article has been tagged with notability concerns since 2017. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, Theatre, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not finding anything - most of his roles are smaller and less likely to gain mention in sourcing. I was trying to find coverage for his theatrical performances, but I'm not finding much there either. With the awards, it looks like those were "best film" type awards for movies he produced. However the issue with awards as producer is that it's harder to establish their role in the production. Some producers are extremely involved and important to the final product, whereas others aren't really "hands on" with the production outside of funding and initial work. Of course then we have to look at whether or not the awards are notable enough to meet NCREATIVE/NACTOR either partially (count towards but not enough on its own to keep) or fully (enough on its own). I've always thought a good rule of thumb is to see if the awards website lists the producer. If so, then it could be usable (assuming the award is notable), if not it likely isn't.

In any case, with the awards, two of them are known vanity awards (Accolade Competition, Impact Docs Award). Nashville Film Festival and the Beverly Hill Film Festival look like wins from them would probably be usable. Tacoma Film Festival is smaller, but probably OK. The other wins are questionable as far as notability goes and the others are nominations so it's irrelevant whether they are notable or not - none of them are at the level where a nomination would be considered noteworthy. That's limited to things like the Oscars.

I guess the question here is whether or not his producing role was large enough for him to inherit notability from the movies in a similar way that one would as an actor or director. Executive producer credits would probably count, but the generic producer credit is where there's pause. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple of theater reviews. Only three though, which is technically enough I guess to pass NACTOR. I think between that and the kind of nebulous producer notability, that might be enough to keep. I'm not 100% so I am not making an argument for or against at the moment. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Boufarhat

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

This article reads somewhat like a resume mixed with a blog, possibly because the subject, per the article, "keeps a low public profile". The references, though 30, are not predominantly about the subject; many are ammouncements about his company, and several others are general articles that mention him in passing. The few sources that are actually about him profile him for having a lot of money, either locally or in Forbes, and are not generally in depth. He does not appear to be personally notable. This is also a problematic WP:BLP, devoting a lot of space to his personal health. FalconK (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. FalconK (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, United Arab Emirates, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of enduring (or even basic) notability. His brief time in a UAE school didn't really leave any footprints here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Panel Funding

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

Fails notability. Sources are e.g. business directories. Wire723 (talk) 14:18, 17 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) 14:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertorial offal disguised as a 'government grant program' which is just regular home renovation financing and just another solar contractor. Nathannah • 📮 16:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable WP:ROTM corp that is padded out using grant information to advertise for the company. Should be speedied. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forward Swindon

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

Non-notable organization without any WP:SIGCOV or lasting impact. Could simply be mentioned in a sentence in Swindon Borough Council. ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a quick search for additional sources and only found this one here.

Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Swindon Borough Council. It's a defunct foundation that helped the Borough. It's run of the mill like the thousands of "friends of Swindon library" and "Swindon development Corp" types of foundations and corporations. Bearian (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wire723 (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swindon Borough Council and mention in a sentence there. Any impact made by this organisation can easily be dealt with in that article. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Connolly

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

I think WP:BLP1E applies. Suggest this page returns to being a redirect to 2024 United Kingdom riots. Paul W (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect, target article already has small section that mostly duplicates this article. This is not a notable person, this is a single minor incident that cannot be separated from the greater context resulting from the stabbings. WP:BLP1E definitely applies. Schazjmd (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Connolly's case is a huge story in the UK. The page as it currently is does indeed duplicate much of what's already on the page about the riots, however it can certainly be expanded upon - there's also the crowdfunder set up to supposedly get her life back on track once she's released, the numerous attempts to get her released early (including a Parlimentary Early Day Motion signed by several notable MPs), the frequent accusations of her jailing being evidence of "two-tier policing", etc. Just Google Connolly and you'll see how much coverage she and her prison sentence have received from a wide range of news outlets, from BBC News to The Guardian to an opinion piece in the New Statesman and more. I truly believe she and her case warrant an article on here, at least while socially relevant. After she's released and fades into obscurity, sure, delete it. But for now I think it absolutely should be kept. Ninehundreddollarydoos (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ninehundreddollarydoos, you might be more persuasive if you read WP:BLP1E and then explain how Connolly doesn't meet those criteria. Her case is already covered at 2024 United Kingdom riots. Schazjmd (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect, I read about this. I had previously read about her writing to Trump, who has absolutely no power over any British legal issue. He might be "'monitoring" as he claims, but he has no power. And quite frankly, given that there are approximately 7,500,000 American Jews, it is not likely Trump would excuse this woman's actions. — Maile (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect, clearcut WP:BLP1E case. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Darnbrough

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

I just don't see WP:SIGCOV, I've looked over this article a few times and the build is solely done on WP:ROUTINE, primary citations. I honestly feel this is not notable enough. Govvy (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, I can't find any SIGCOV. Seems to just be a run of the mill article on a football scout who played a bit of amateur earlier in his life. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is an important role he has at clubs, but a behind-the-scenes role. All the coverage seems to be "he is hired by club" and "he has left club".--Echetus Xe 19:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D1 Denby Darts

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

Non notable local bus route with limited history and fails WP:GNG Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Team Pennine under the existing Denby Darts heading. This article is too short by itself but would fit into the main article for the service's operator. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 19:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misfits Entertainment

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

Reversed redirect without improvement. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Lots of mentions and db entries. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:25, 14 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) 19:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mediawan: Restore redirect as originally created. This company does not pass the notability threshold, per nom, hence why I created it as a redirect in the first place. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 23:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree with above move as ATD , as tried a search and have yet to find SIGCOV on the company itself, the citations in the article seems more on the Films than the actual company itself.Lorraine Crane (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

O'Loughlin Farrell family

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

No sources cover this family as a concept. // Hippo43 (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was full of sources that discussed the family connections and rugby heritage, and I have added additional sources to the lede which refer to "the O’Loughlin/Farrell family" and "the Farrell-O'Loughlin family". EdwardUK (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league, Rugby union, and England. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced article. Family concept talked about in some references in the Genealogical references section, in addition to the one's added to lead since AfD nomination. Mn1548 (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devons Road DLR station

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

Nothing on the page to suggest there are sufficient independent RS to meet the inclusion criteria. WP:NTRAINSTATION WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. JMWt (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (expecting snowball keep frankly). Just because there are no sources on the article does not mean they do not exist. MRSC (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if you could suggest some relevant sources that meet the standards for inclusion that would be great. Thanks. JMWt (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a few book sources in the article. Have you verified that the offline sources also do not provide SIGCOV? Generally active British railway stations are kept at AfD because of the offline sourcing. Jumpytoo Talk 21:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Sight

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted in 2017. This current disclosed paid draft was tagged as G4 and I speedy deleted after looking at sources applied. The page creator has appealed and I have restored the page while we discuss this subject on the merits. By my view, there's nothing applied or found which puts this past WP:NCORP. I'm sure there are thousands of UK care clinics which would pay somebody to write an article about them; the physician in this case still has a likely undisclosed paid article about them which I am not disputing in this process. I'm just not seeing anything which puts this business past WP:Notability more than any other like business. BusterD (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and United Kingdom. BusterD (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's not a source in the article which comes close to passing our stringent WP:NCORP standards. SportingFlyer T·C 13:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. Doesn't come close to passing WP:GNG. Just another successful business. I've also nominated Sheraz Daya, another paid article about this clinic's doctor, for deletion.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasoning. Nothing unique about this clinic vs. other UK-based ones. Possible UPE connection here with Sheraz Daya (also deletion nom)--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Sheraz Daya. Independent coverage is all in the context of his work. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Sheraz Daya if it survives AfD, or alternatively just delete per clear GNG fail. I also agree that SALTing is probably appropriate at this point too. Daniel (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article should speak for itself, but there is nothing in the text of this article that implies general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article like this can pass either CORP or GNG. It passes neither. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From looking at the sources available, it is clear that the subject does not pass the notability guidelines. As far as the other AfD mentioned goes, redirection would suffice, only if it results in keep. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Thanks for your input. I've just added better third party sources and detail on why it is a notable eye centre. Hope that clarifies things. Many thanks. Erin Dearlove (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Added source appears to be this link, which does not change the above assessment. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheraz Daya

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

I can't find a single in-depth piece about this doctor from an independent, reliable source. Most of the current references are either dead links or simple mentions of them. The rest either do not mention them at all, or are primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Ireland, England, Northern Ireland, Minnesota, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for your reasoning. Yikes to UPE--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks direct detailing in independent reliable sources. Every major contributor to this page is either the SPA page creator or an ip contributor. BusterD (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is news coverage, although some of the best of it is in the Daily Mail; I triggered the deprecated sources warning leaving 2 such sources in hidden comments, while citing what I consider less good sources that are not listed as deprecated. The article needs to be cut down and its language further de-promotionalised, and I am going to advocate deletion and redirection of Centre for Sight. But I believe Daya meets GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article has been reference-bombed, which is common with articles by paid editors, which makes it difficult to perform a standard source assessment. Can the author of the article, or any other proponent of the article, identify three best sources that establish general notability, or should we conclude that there are a large number of low-quality sources that do not establish notability? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon... I didn't go through all of them, but I went through 25. Not a single one of them was an in-depth piece from an independent, reliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete pending identification of the three best sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the news coverage does not actually rise to the level of GNG - they are just stories where he is interviewed as part of a larger story, they are not specifically on him. And there's nothing else here which shows notability... SportingFlyer T·C 06:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in response to Robert McClenon, onel5969, SportingFlyer: I've made a further search that shook loose more news coverage. I think the best sources now in the article are:
- James Meikle (29 April 2005). "Donor stem cells restore sight". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 June 2025.
- "Success for 'first' eye patient". BBC News. 9 August 2007.
- Sarah Hall (15 March 2007). "Stem cell therapy improves sight of patients born with no irises". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 June 2025.

In addition, the Daily Mail has devoted at least 2 articles entirely to Daya. I left the URLs of the following sources commented out in the article (note these are for separate news and 3 years apart):

Ben Tufft (24 April 2016). "British eye surgeon will carry out the country's first transplant using an artificial cornea". Daily Mail. (I presume the Daily Times story that I added yesterday to avoid the ban on citing the Daily Mail is cribbed from this)
Martyn Halle; Stephen Adams (22 June 2019). "Pioneering six-minute cornea transplant surgery could spell the end for reading glasses with patients 'able to make out small print within minutes'". Daily Mail.

I also think the Lifetime Achievement Award contributes to his notability: source that I substituted for a barelink PDF: "AAO 2022 Recap". Millennial EYE. Bryn Mawr Communications. September–October 2022. Retrieved 13 June 2025.

For further interest, my search today focussed on The Guardian (we were already citing The Telegraph, which is less respected as an RS on the project, and the article is more personal in approach) shook loose Serazdaya.com, which is an attack website, it seems prompted by Daya's criticism of rival lens transplant operations; both The Guardian and the Daily Mail have cited him as an expert in investigating one or more of those, so those articles also come up on search although they're not appropriate to cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yngvadottir (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian contains an interview, it's not clear it's a true secondary source. The BBC article is very short and he is only mentioned twice including one quote. The second Guardian article is five paragraphs which contains a quote from him. The Daily Mail articles are obviously unreliable even though they go into more of a profile of him, and the lifetime achievement award - it's very unclear from that link who even issues the award, so it can't contribute to notability. There's really not much here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SportingFlyer's assessment of the sources.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Jones (entrepreneur)

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

An orphan article. Most of the sources are small mentions like confirming she sat on boards and some dead links. Trivia like "Jones donated £100,000 to the Conservative Party in September 2019" doesn't add to notability. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and England. LibStar (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would make sense to redirect to Lawrence Jones (businessman) or UKFast, with a preference for the latter, since that's where she gets her notability from. There's some sources, but they do not describe her outside of these contexts, and the'y certainly aren't GNG qualifying. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose redirect as an unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - UKFast no longer exists, merged with ANS in 2022. Inasmuch as that is her claim to notability, maybe just delete. Her husband Lawrence Nigel Jones is a convicted rapist serving 15 years in prison for multiple criminal offences. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes not sure if Gail Jones would want her article to be redirected to her criminal husband. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nom; passing or trivial coverage and notability (if any) is a few sources are through her husband. Not sufficient to meet WP:BIO WeWake (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NOTINHERITED. Buried under the anthill of poor sourcing is not so much "trivia": a BLP violation connecting her with her husband's crimes and a possible campaign contribution that hints at bribery. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Salahi

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

In my opinion this article don't meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia and there is no reliable source quoted either in the article. R1F4T (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heir (tournament)

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

Lack of sigcov and available sources; article itself is very short and poorly sourced while also being orphaned. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United Kingdom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was borderline at best when I created it, and they stopped their activities soon afterwards so their coverage will not grow. Happy to admit I was wrong on this one :) Exilexi (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per article's creator, Exilexi --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott King (artist)

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

This article doesn't appear to meet the WP:BIO. Specifically I do not believe there is enough widespread coverage by secondary reliable sources. I have tried to do some research, but of the few sources available these are either primary sources or linked to the subject. Sksatsuma (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Visual arts. Sksatsuma (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sources exist - I'm finding coverage online to substantiate sigcov. Not !voting yet, but I'm pretty sure he meets notability for GNG if not also for NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yikes! I can see why this was nominated for deletion in its previous form. I have updated the article to show his work in MoMA and Tate. But it sure needs a little bit more help. Crummy article is used on https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/scott-king-2763 and https://contemporaryartsociety.org/artists/scott-king --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I apologise if I may have been a bit hasty with the deletion discussion! I had a short search for sources and came up short, but it looks like I could've dug a bit deeper. Appreciate the work you've done :) Sksatsuma (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sksatsuma, when searching for this artist (at least from the U.S.) many of the hits that come back were for Corretta Scott King, so it helps to use additional search terms like "graphic designer" or "artist" or "illustrator" or even U.K., England or British. This helps filter out the correct Scott King. If you haven't already read WP:BEFORE, there is also some helpful info there. Netherzone (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone Thank you for the advice - it's appreciated, it was definitely something that could've been done more thoroughly. I have read WP:BEFORE but did not follow it well! Sksatsuma (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The works of this British graphic designer are present in the notable museum permanent collections of the (Tate, and MoMA), therefore meets criteria #4 of WP:NARTIST; while the in-depth significant coverage in these: meets WP:GNG: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Additionally, there is this interview in Andy Warhol's Interview magazine which has quite a bit of editorial content and in-depth discussion (not a trivial interview). Other interviews: [11], [12], [13], and [14]. Interviews are normally thought of as primary sources, but I consider the first one listed here to be in-depth enough (and with enough input from the interviewer to be considered). Exhibitions include the Institute of Contemporary Arts, Barbican and Studio Voltaire in London; Museum of Modern Art and White Columns, in New York; Palais de Tokyo, Paris; State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg; Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago; Portikus, Frankfurt; and Kunstverein Munich. He's notable. Netherzone (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Fairweather

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

That the subject is a published journalist and author of a book is easily demonstrated, but the question is, is she notable? Doing a WP:BEFORE, I'm not really seeing anything to indicate notability. Her book (which handily had an amazon link included) ranks outside the top 3,000 'home and garden' books. There is passing mention in articles covering her husband (who appears to have a possible COI on the article). Apart from that, it's largely articles she has written. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : Plenty of articles written by this person, nothing about them. I tried looking for book reviews, nothing comes up rather than where to buy the books. The Harper's Bazaar article is a primary source, so not helpful... Rest aren't of much use. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: in a quick ProQuest / EBSCO search, I found two reviews of a book (added to Catherine Fairweather#Career), but it seems the bulk of her career (and the focus of RS) has been magazine / newspaper writing. I don't think WP:NAUTHOR is the way to go. Bridget (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the book reviews as discussed above and added to the article are about a travel book, that directly relates to the individual's career. That seems to show notability, I suppose AUTHOR is met. She's not primarily known as an author of books, but it all relates to her travel writings in mass media. Oaktree b (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - definitely more of a borderline situation. I've added some critical reception of her book and podcast and a bit of news coverage on her travel writing work for magazines. Bridget (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JSM Group

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BEFORE didn't turn up sufficient decent sources so as to meet WP:NCORP. Plenty of passing mentions and WP:ORGTRIV but nothing substantial. Company recently won an award for non-intrusive cable extraction, but I don't think that on its own is sufficient. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and United Kingdom. SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Hi I'm Sailing427, but you can call me Sailing. Look at my profile. (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing indicating this is notable and it looks like it was put here only to raise the company's profile. FalconK (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP, also unable to find anything via ProQuest. S0091 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Lewis

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

Subject was previously weakly deleted in 2010 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lewis (philosopher) (3rd nomination). Since then they have apparently published a book with some reviews, but on the face of it the article still seems to fall short of notability for an academic. BD2412 T 20:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. BD2412 T 20:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep since the last time this was up he's gone from Associate Professor at a flagship state university to full professor at an Ivy. His H-Index has gone from 10 to 18 according to Google scholar and he's continuing to publish in top journals (and book chapters with top presses). The book has been cited quite a bit and by our notability standards, if we think he's not notable, the article should be redirected to the book title and an article on the book created. Jahaza (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that the book itself is notable. BD2412 T 00:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - A bit WP:OTHERSTUFFy, but if this is notable... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - @The Bushranger: Really it isn't, but the AfD on it closed as no consensus. BD2412 T 14:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, England, California, Florida, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. A good citation presence in a low cited area. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral on the article. The citation record is borderline for WP:PROF#C1 (although maybe strong for philosophy) and one book isn't enough for me for WP:AUTHOR. But the book is definitely notable: the article currently lists three reviews (Sebens, Shaw, and Garcia) and I found three more: : Valia Allori, Philosophy of Science, JSTOR 26551953; Ben Novak, The Review of Metaphysics, JSTOR 44806993; Alyssa Ney, Metascience, doi:10.1007/s11016-017-0232-8. With six in-depth independent reliable sources it passes WP:GNG. If the biography is deemed non-notable, it would still be possible to have an article on the book and redirect to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The topic appears notable. The prior deletion is somewhat antiquated. However, I still cannot observe a substantial enhancement in coverage regarding the subject CresiaBilli (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the last 2010 AfD has had a book published by Oxford University Press and moved from associate professor at a good regional university to full professor at Dartmouth, with good citation numbers for a low-citation field. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear why all of that would make the subject notable, other than the citation numbers, which (as David Eppstein mentioned above) seem borderline, at least to me. Can you refer to any other criterion of Wikipedia:NPROF that you believe this subject meets? Because one book wouldn't be enough, generally. Qflib (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Qflib: from WP:NPROF "The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?" -- generally speaking, receiving tenure and esp. full professorship at an Ivy League institution happens because someone is clearly more notable or more accomplished than the average researcher in a field. Maybe you don't like this argument, but it is a commonly used criterion. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn’t convince me, but since the subject is borderline on C1 I won’t oppose keeping the article. Qflib (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above, I note that his article-length works aren't just cited in passing; his work has started some long-standing conversations in the philosophy of science. See, e.g., the opening line of this paper. Here and here are papers in that conversation where Lewis's name is literally the first thing that appears in the abstract. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of this has made it into the article. BD2412 T 18:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So? Now that it's been pointed out someone can add it. But it's often not worth it to add things to the article when it's being considered for deletion, because then the work gets deleted if it gets deleted. Jahaza (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that to the casual reader of this article, nothing indicates the encyclopedic importance of this subject beyond that of the average professor with a book under their belt. BD2412 T 19:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a problem with the article as written, not with the notability of the subject. Jahaza (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - his philosophical monograph has a couple hundred citations in google scholar, and also three book reviews, which are both *technically* qualifying for the bare minimum of WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. I wouldn't personally nominate something like this for AfD, but I also don't think the project would be any worse off if we didn't have this page or the probably 3000 other alive-during-wikipedia philosophy professors of roughly equal notability. Psychastes (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. "Keep but I really wish we had a broader discussion as a community about how we're running a vanity service for middling academics" Psychastes (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I would love to see a discussion to clarify NPROF since we seem to be all over the map. In the end I fear we are introducing prejudice to this category of articles. Lamona (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wilberforce College

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

Unreferenced article. Fails WP:NSCHOOL/WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: very little online to form a claim for notability. I did notice that it is apparently built on the site of an iron age settlement but that's about all. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 04:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conscium

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

TOO SOON, as I cannot find reliable sources. References are not focused on the Conscium company. Cinder painter (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable for an entry in the encyclopedia at this time. Though WP:RS are listed in the references, they are behind paywall so accessing them for an assessment was impossible. But before search did turn out any impressive result for notability. Patre23 (talk) 15:02, 11 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) 15:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:TOOSOON. First off, it was written by ChatGPT and/or an overpaid editor for hire. Secondly, this company is too new to be the subject of an encyclopedia article; everything written in any of the sources is merely news. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Shalom

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

This entire article, beyond the opening paragraph, is about a totally different person. Should be deleted or sent to drafts. How this passed the new page checks I can't understand. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Boxing, and England. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it appears to be a copy paste of Moses Itauma, besides the first sentence. Masohpotato (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I imagine that the creating editor (same for both Moses Itauma and this article) based this article on the previous one and forgot to remove the copied text. I have now removed it. Anxioustoavoid as far as I can see no-one up until now has marked the page as reviewed, so it has not passed the new page checks. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Ping me if you can find three reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike the above !votes, I think Shalom passes WP:GNG. Understandably, I think frustration over this article passing our new page check system may have yielded insufficient WP:BEFORE. There are numerous articles which mention him by name and cover him to an extent that I would say passes WP:SIGCOV: e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Some of these might be debatable given that much of the coverage relates to the Eubank vs Benn fight, but there are articles with interviews of him and discussion of him as a promoter going back to 2024 - if he is a promoter who is being mentioned by name in article headlines across multiple fights spanning years of time, that seems notable. I will also ping Bearian per request. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 14:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Flipandflopped. And yes, this is a flip-flop. Please add the sources to the article. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Article has been updated. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 14:41, 15 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]

Keep As Stacey Gregg she meets WP:NACTOR. She has also been credited as Stacey Jefferson and Stacey Richardson. As well as voicing the roles mentioned in the current article, she played Daffy in all episodes of Tottering Towers and Nurse Baxter in 23 episodes of Crossroads from 1977-1978. On stage, she played Sandy opposite Richard Gere in the British premiere of Grease (musical), first in Coventry and then on the West End. As well as the coverage found by Piecesofuk, there is coverage and information about more roles in the British Newspaper Archive. I'll add more info and sources to the article. There appears to be another Stacey Gregg, probably also notable, who is director of Here Before and co-creator/director of other shows. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:39, 15 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:17, 14 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]
Redirect to Ealing London Borough Council elections for now. User:Moondragon21 (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps it was a bit early, but it feels a bit of a waste of energy and work to delete it. Perhaps Redirect Kepleo123 (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Election is happening within the next year; article is well-written with information currently available. It wouldn't benefit Wikipedia in any way to remove the existing content only to reinstate it in a few months' time. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chessrat: No reliable, independent sources have been cited. The election may take place next year but it is still WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL if no secondary sources are available. QEnigma (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has five citations.

This sort of thing happens all the time for upcoming elections– someone writes an article on the election in question, someone else tries to get the article deleted, the attempt fails. It ~ould be a far more productive use of time to develop this article and similar articles. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chessrat: With regards to your comment on a well written article, it appears that most of the content including some of the references have been copied from 2022 Ealing London Borough Council election but no attribution given. Please note Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). QEnigma (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody has done so already, I have now added this attribution to the talk page. Thanks for pointing it out! Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon, none of the sources cover the 2026 election. red link to encourage creation when time comes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoblyblob (talk • contribs) 04:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Voorts: Source assessment table:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20230406212109/https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/who-runs-london/essential-guide-london-local-government	Primary source	Government website	No significant coverage of the subject	✘ No
https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/ealings-new-leader-peter-mason-20629850	Part of Reach plc publishers of the Daily Mirror	No consensus	No significant coverage of the subject	✘ No
https://ealing.news/ealing-council/south-acton-ward-councillor-standing-down-to-focus-on-parliament-role/	Local community-led online publication	No consensus	No significant coverage of the subject	✘ No
https://ealing.news/politics/general-election-2024/deirdre-costigan-elected-as-mp-for-ealing-southall/	Local community-led online publication	No consensus	No significant coverage of the subject	✘ No
https://ealing.news/politics/general-election-2024/three-by-elections-set-for-ealing-after-ward-councillors-become-mps/	Local community-led online publication	No consensus	No significant coverage of the subject	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment I have added a source focusing on the 2026 election specifically to the article. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:11, 17 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 [15], [16], [17], [18], and [19]. 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 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]
That is part of WP:NCORP; if there's a subject guideline here it is WP:NBUILDING, part of WP:NGEO. Peter James (talk) 14:48, 17 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]

Comment: I'm browsing the British Newspaper Archive on my phone at the moment, which makes it difficult to assess things properly, but I'm seeing quite a lot of substantial coverage of the early stages of planning and building the shopping centre (up to 1987) in the Portsmouth Evening News, which is more "regional" than "local" in nature. I will investigate fully when I get home tonight. The Cascades is a prominent shopping centre, comparable to those listed in the navbox at the bottom of the article; I feel continued coverage "should" be findable – quite probably in Portsmouth Reference Library, which I have used before. I will follow up on this later. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 14:10, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

England

Sabrina Lund

Jaden Heskey

Emmett James

Johnny Boufarhat

Solar Panel Funding

Forward Swindon

Lucy Connolly

Lee Darnbrough

D1 Denby Darts

Misfits Entertainment

O'Loughlin Farrell family

Devons Road DLR station

Centre for Sight

Sheraz Daya

Gail Jones (entrepreneur)

Adil Salahi

Heir (tournament)

Scott King (artist)

Catherine Fairweather

JSM Group

Peter J. Lewis

Wilberforce College

Conscium

Ben Shalom

Stacy Jefferson

2026 Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council election

2026 Ealing London Borough Council election

Tas Qureshi

Cascades Shopping Centre

New Town (Colchester ward)

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also