Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom

WP:AFD/UKWP: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

Sainsbury's Cola

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

Not notable and mostly unsourced content Update6 (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and United Kingdom. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:25, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

James Gordon (journalist)

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

Delete – The article does not meet WP:N or WP:BIO, as the subject does not have coverage in reliable or independent secondary sources. References either read as primary, ie as if written by the subject, or non-independent; which does not establish notability. There is no record of recent BBC journalism by this journalist. The issues with this article go back many years - the article has multiple maintenance tags for unclear notability, lack of reliable sourcing, and WP:BLP concerns for many years (dating back to 2016), with similar concerns raised on the talk page in 2013 and again in 2022, all of which are not resolved. Given these issues, the lack of independent editing in the article, and the lack of independent sources to draw upon, “keep and improve” is not realistic as the issues seem to be inherent rather than editorial. At most the subject may warrant a brief inclusion in a wider article (e.g. List of current BBC newsreaders and reporters, or one on a topic they covered rather than a standalone biography) - although, as noted, given the lack of recent (last 10 years) BBC or original journalism potentially not even this. Elk5000 (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Elk5000 (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete Among the nine references, six are to his BBC reports, one to his LinkedIn, one to a CNET profile of his wife, and one to his profile on UK Country Radio. The biography contains nothing that would indicate notability. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Citelynx

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them contained any significant coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, Transportation, United Kingdom, and England. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NORG (not even close to GNG). Absolutely nothing in Newspapers.com too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to List of defunct airlines of the United Kingdom. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Academy 360, Sunderland

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

Another day, another UK secondary school article which doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL. News articles are present, but only local and trivial coverage from the same kind of outlets as in the deletion discussion for a nearby school. Athanelar (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and United Kingdom. Athanelar (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 16:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep - Almost nothing from Academy 360, but the school is the successor of Pennywell Comprehensive School, and that turns up more (although the books Four Winds Nomad that is not a primary source is a self published autobiography without significant coverage). There is, however, significant coverage in - Harris, A (2006) Improving Schools in Exceptionally Challenging Circumstances Bloomsbury Academic. and - Potter, J. (2006) Active Citizenship in Schools. Taylor & Francis. That's two good publishers, and info on the school is secondary. There's also the usual slew of news reporting, both under the news link, and also in newspaper archives, e.g. . News reporting is usually primary, so we would need more careful review of those before accepting they count towards notability, but the coverage is sustained (my first hit was from 1965, as the school was still being founded). It is almost certain that this extensive coverage allows a page to be written, and the books alone should carry this over the line for GNG/NORG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep per Sirfurboy. It is not clear what the nominator means by Another day, another UK secondary school article which doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says that schools are usually notable. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Well, no, it says independent accredited degree-awarding institutions are often notable; which secondary schools in the UK are not.

It actually specifically says of secondary schools that following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, Athanelar (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Looks like "independently accredited degree-awarding institutions" refers to tertiary institutions. I thought that schools were also "degree-awarding". However, in that case, it is unclear what "accredited" means. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
I think there's an English usage question here. In American English, a university is a school and will award higher education degrees. This school, however, is in the UK, and it refers to secondary education, not higher education. It's not a degree awarding institution - students take the externally administered and state exams (GCSE and A level). But it does, in my opinion, meet WP:NORG, so we don't have to worry about the presumption of notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Institute of Contemporary Music Performance

AfDs for this article:

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

This article does not include significant independent coverage from reliable secondary sources, appears to rely heavily on self-published or primary sources, and may not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for organisations (WP:N). As written, it reads like promotional content rather than an encyclopedic article. For deletion review under WP:Articles for deletion. ~2025-41481-71 (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of anonymous editor--above text is copied from article talk page. I am neutral at this time. --Finngall ^talk 23:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 00:13, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Kerrang!/XFM UK Acoustic Sessions

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:NALBUM/ WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. Fails WP:NALBUM and a quick look for sources online finds no WP:SIGCOV either. --^The Robot Parade 19:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Cyber security in the United Kingdom

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

Article with unclear scope, indiscriminate collection of facts. PhotographyEdits (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PhotographyEdits (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United Kingdom. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 04:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't need its own article. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Merge I would merge a very short overview of some of the info in this article to Computer_security#National_actions under new subheading for United Kingdom. Too much of this article is unsourced WP:SYNTH and not notable enough for a standalone article. Noticed that the UK doesn't have a section in Cyberattacks_by_country so I'll add info there. Orange sticker (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

In Your Dreams (novel)

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

I wish I could’ve found reliable sources, but I failed Doug Weller talk 19:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and United Kingdom. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete: A few book reviews found for other books with the same name, none by this author though. The one source used in the article is fine, brief though... Nothing in Gnewspapers either. I don't see much else we can use to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep. I found a long review in The Washington Post, and shorter reviews in The Guardian, The Winnipeg Free Press and Booklist. Should be enough to meet NBOOK. MCE89 (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep – the novel is referenced in The Bookseller (four times in 2004/2005), reviewed by The Guardian (15 Jan 2005) and various British regional newspapers. To my mind it easily meets our notability and verifiability criteria. Tim riley talk 11:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment: It looks like this is part of an overall series - my thought is that this could be merged into an overall series page whenever that is created. Offhand this looks to be a case of the book technically passing NBOOK but not really enough sourcing for this to be anything more than a plot article with some reviews. If it's like other, similar cases, then this is probably something that would be more informative as an overall series article. In those situations the notable individual entries are usually kind of eternal stubs and any coverage of the development tends to be more about the series as a whole, so there's a lot of repetition and overlap between the various articles.

I'll try to create this either today or tomorrow, so we can then look at turning this article into a redirect. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I had the same thought. If you do end up having the time to create a page about the series then I'd happily support a redirect. MCE89 (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep per MCE89 and Tim riley above. I am interested in Tokyogirl's solution, depending on whether some books in the series are much better covered in the press than others, and as long as there is sufficient information about each book in the series. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

On the face of it I think I'd happily support the suggestion, but I confess I don't know enough about the series to presume to voice an opinion. Tim riley talk 16:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah - I need to research it first to make sure that it's not a case of there being plentiful sourcing, it's just not easily found. Pretty sure that it's not, but always best to check. I've been a bit busy today but I'm planning on checking this tonight. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

On a side note, I thought I had an essay up about this, but I don't - I should probably write one so I can just link to that instead of typing it all out at AfD each time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep - the novel satisfy WP:NB and WP:GNG. Article could be improved with better sourcing but not deleted. ~2025-40198-86 (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep. The book reviews are a very clear pass of WP:NBOOK. But I agree it would be nice to have a series article instead. WP:PAGEDECIDE tells that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic and I think book series are very often in this situation. Normal editing can handle a merge, though. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to J. W. Wells & Co.. I put out a very quick skeleton of a series page. It definitely needs expansion, but I don't really have the time or intense interest offhand, admittedly. Looks like this definitely was a case of the first two books being generally notable, but the later entries not as much. I was a bit surprised that there weren't any interviews out there for the author, concerning this series, but perhaps someone else may have better luck? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment. Given the very brief nature of the new article, which simply lists the novels and does not discuss them, I still think we should keep the individual article about the novel and not merge and redirect, at least for now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

That's why I said to merge and redirect - after the merging, it can be redirected. I just hadn't had the energy to create sections for each individual novel. There really isn't much in the book's article other than a plot synopsis and reception section. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:46, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Raymond Sargent

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSIC. Almost all citations are primary sources. Aneirinn (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete – Lacks independent coverage. Svartner (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 03:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete I searched for his name on newspapers.com for March 2009 and couldn't find any obituaries. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Sourcing in the article is largely primary. I can bring up about a dozen obituaries for a variety of people with this name, none for this person. I don't see anything about this person in my search... Has been tagged for almost 20 yrs with no improvement. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete per above discussion. I'm always confused by people (friends? fans?) who write articles about another person, but leave no hints or explanation for us to get more information. This person had a common name, so searching for more citations without context is impractical. Bearian (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete — there isnt in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GNGs ~2025-40198-86 (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep - Trouble finding the obit may be because he was using a stage name, but I found it and have made a couple other improvements (though the article needs cleanup), citing a brief review in an academic journal and a newspaper preview. His archived website quotes about a dozen reviews, mostly in local papers, so they're out there to be found. Adds up to notability. BrechtBro (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Al Kingsley

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

This article is supported almost entirely by passing mentions or primary sources. The most notable coverage was a single review of a book he wrote, everything else is a primary source or brief. I searched online and he only appeared on non-reliable sources, like personal websites and podcasts, or in pieces he wrote himself. aaronneallucas (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. aaronneallucas (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Enervation (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete. There is not enough here or out there for this to meet WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Certainly Keep I found him on Forbes and multiple other prominent news places so end the thing he got both the significant coverage and was notable enough with high achievements and awards, I just added those to the references AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete - "prominent" does not mean reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ I found his extremely reliable London gazette official record and just added it, you cant let the page go anymore and it must stay forever https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4783341#:~:text=Notice%20details,ID:%204783341%20Notice%20code:%201129 AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
not passing mention at all check it out AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate keep vote struck. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
ok I wont do that, but tell them my new reference that will definitely save him for being deleted AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Team Soho

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

Appears to fail org notability. A company that was created from Sony Computer Entertainment Europe in 2002, but only listed on two The Gataway games, with one being with London Studio and the third being canceled. If I understand correctly, the lead says closed the same year 2002 but the infobox says 2008. Appears the relevance period is from 1994 to 2002, but then the article name is rather misleading and the 1996 Next Generation is the only source that covers that period. IgelRM (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United Kingdom. IgelRM (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete – Fails in WP:NCORP. Svartner (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete – fails WP:NCORP Afr (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to The Getaway (video game) or Sony Interactive Entertainment. WP:ATD works here. Go D. Usopp (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete or Merge. Per above. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Man vs. (franchise)

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

Two series is not a franchise, so article is unnecessary. Indagate (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Indagate (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete Probably the nominator is correct that for a franchise we need at least three works, one main one and at least two derivatives. I also cannot find any sources that descrbe these two series as a franchise. Regarding navigational value, it is better to add a hatnote to each article that links to the other one. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep: NETFLIX labels it as the "Man vs." collection. ScrubbedSoap (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Weak delete I thought this was going to be Man vs. Food. Seems very on the line and there isnt that much going for it as is. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete: The sources used are all primary. Unable to find any reliable sources referring to these two as a franchise. मल्ल (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Enough to have separate articles on the two series. Geschichte (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

The Mammoth Book of Extreme Science Fiction

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

I'm working on the unreferenced articles backlog. I can't seem to find any reliable source coverage of this book (pretty rare to come across for books, especially for one with notable authors published in it). I checked through a search deep dive, a look into Google Books, a look through specific databases like Newspapers.com. There doesn't appear to be anything out there approaching significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Silver seren^C 00:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Lots of reviews in blogs, I don't see any in what we use for RS. There are a ton of reviews online, but just none in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and United Kingdom. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 05:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Merge the brief description of the book to Mike Ashley (writer), the author's article. The Locus Online index of reviews states that there was a review in the issue (web page?) of May 2006. So there seems some significance to the book, but one review is not enough for an article. Daranios (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to Mike Ashley (writer) as an WP:ATD. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
Redirect. I checked at the SFDB to see if there were any reviews listed and the only one was the sole Locus review. This is mildly surprising, but not overly so as collections like this tend to either gain many reviews or few to none. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to Mike Ashley (writer). If any good sources that would support a stand-alone article are identified, please ping me. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep. A shame to lose this, some reviews can be added, this is obviously known in its field. Halbared (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Halbared: You wouldn't perhaps have a citation for such a review available beyond the Locus one? Thanks! Daranios (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to author. I found nothing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Mike Ashley (writer) where the book is already included in the list of "Mammoth Books of..." compilations they edited. Rorshacma (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Herman's Hermits Hits

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

Found this under the "suggested edits" tab of my homepage. Fails WP:NALBUM. The name of this EP makes sources nearly impossible to find, but I doubt significant, reliable ones exist. Red Shell Momentum 22:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, United Kingdom, and England. Red Shell Momentum 22:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to Herman's Hermits discography#UK extended plays, where it is listed, as an alternative to deletion. ✗plicit 00:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

S.E.A. Dragons

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

Delete and do not dratify: The article's creator has a history of created articles generated by an LLM (AI), and this article is likely no different; see also Draft talk:Esports Wales#Creation of Article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esports Wales, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Jackson (esports administrator). GPTZero, although not proven to be 100% certain, returns a high probability of LLM-generation for the text of this article.

Even disregarding the use of an LLM, the sourcing is very weak. There is no significant coverage, the majority of sources are game statistics, and the few examples of independent coverage are limited to local coverage in the Welsh press. Secondary-league esports teams and players rarely meet WP:ORG, let alone quaternary ones. Yue ✉ 19:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Organizations, United Kingdom, and Wales. Yue ✉ 19:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
I am nominating the following article for the same reasons: Tadpole (gamer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Yue ✉ 19:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete: per nom. Gommeh 📖 🎮 21:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment - wouldn't it be better to nominate Tadpole (gamer) separately? Individuals and organisations are treated differently when it comes to notability. Sionk (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
The main issues of LLM generation and failing WP:BASIC are the same because they were written (generated) by the same author. I could split the nominations, but the only difference is I would say "does not meet WP:ANYBIO" instead of "does not meet WP:ORG". I contend both articles do not pass basic notability guidelines, let alone the ones specific to their topics. Yue ✉ 18:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
WP:GNG*, not WP:BASIC. Yue ✉ 01:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Sounds like GPT. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Some local coverage but if Esports Wales was not notable, chances for a local team are small. Leaning Delete IgelRM (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Cleft Lip and Palate Association

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

I looked through the sources in the article and found little of value. Checking online, there isn't much beyond some passing mentions of the organization and nothing particularly substantial. I looked through Google and Google News and I couldn't find much about this organization at all. aaronneallucas (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and United Kingdom. aaronneallucas (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 16:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Shell Momentum 19:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

DeleteI was able to find this but I can't tell if it is the same organization (it appears not to be). I couldn't find anything in newspaper sources either other than some mentions of fundraisers but those don't really help establish notability. Seeing as the only sources I could find were either from the organization itself, registration status or trivial mentions I don't think this meets wp:GNG
Delete I don't find any non-primary sources. Also, as mentioned above, there are many organizations in other countries with this same name. Lamona (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

G. T. H. Bracken

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

Not a single reference. Google did not turn up anything notable. Docmoates (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, India, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep. Chief Secretary of Madras Presidency, KCIE and CSI. Plus he has a full obituary in The Times. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
@Necrothesp - I am happy to withdraw if you can find any sourcing where he is the focus of the article. I found nothing really documented other than some social media and a few where he is casually mentioned which as you know does not meet the notability standard. To address the obituary in the NYT... I am sure you are aware but just in case you are not, anyone can buy an obituary in the times. See: https://legacy.memoriams.com/network/thenewyorktimes/obituary Docmoates (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Tha actual Times, not the New York Times! The UK's newspaper of record. No, full obituaries were certainly not for sale in The Times. They were only given when staff believed the person was significant enough to have one. And we have always considered a full obit in a major national British newspaper to be sufficient for notability. Plus he had both a knighthood and a companion in British orders. As I said, very clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
My apologies, @Necrothesp but you actually can here: https://www.newsukadvertising.co.uk/the-times/announcements#:~:text=Announcements%20has%20a%20daily%20dedicated,'%20beginnings%2C%20betrothals%20and%20bereavements. Docmoates (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
That's an announcement, not an obituary! An obituary is a biography of a deceased person written by the newspaper's staff. It's not the same as a notice of death. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
@Necrothesp That includes deaths. See: https://www.newsukadvertising.co.uk/Package?publication=times&section=Announcements&category=Deaths Docmoates (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
That's an announcement of death, not an obituary! A full obituary is not a couple of lines posted in a newspaper by friends or relatives. It's an article written by a member of the newspaper's staff. Only notable people are given them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete: I don't see much about this person, Gsearch hits on the Imperial War Museum, seems to be a soldier there with the same name, although I can't copy the link to it... Not sure what's going on, but that's still only a biography. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment I have added a couple of citations verifying some of the biographical information. Search term "G. T. H. Bracken" brings up c. 200 hits on archive.org and pages of hits on Google Books. ResonantDis_tortion 08:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note that Sir Geoffrey Bracken seems to have been more common than G. T. H. Bracken. That's the title of his Times obit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  @Necrothesp would you able to add a citation to the article for the Times Obit please? I am unable to find it. Further note - this 1945 Nature article states the subject was Finance Minister for the Madras Presidency; indicating a potential pass on WP:NPOL. ResonantDis_tortion 13:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  Behind a paywall, obviously.-- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  @Necrothesp I think that is pretty important to the article to show notability. When I click the link I get a university login screen. Can you provide the title of the article so I can for it in an alternative sources. Docmoates (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep Sufficient evidence he was a member of a legislative body so a claim to notability via WP:NPOL. Furthermore Knight Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire contributes to a significant honour WP:ANYBIO pass, and finally there is a lot of sourcing out there, including the WP:AGF Times Obit and other book mentions, which I have not fully analysed but shows potential to meet WP:BASIC. ResonantDis_tortion 19:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep because he had achievments and there are many more references out there if you search "G. T. N. Bracken" so keep it, close da case AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep because he has received honors for his civil service in British India, which would then be India after he left office. Also, the people who served as Chief Secretary of Madras Presidency before and after him have articles just as large, and by looking at them, these two people did not receive such honors. haruka amaranth 04:21, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. No sources primarily about the subject. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep per WP:NPOL. He was as the article states Revenue member of the Governor's Executive Council of Madras Presidency. I understand that he served as the Finance Minister for this federal subject of the British Empire. This newspaper clipping confirms that. Here is sigcov regarding his proposal to establish the "Madras Famine Relief Fund". Kelob2678 (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Imperium Comms

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

Not yet notable per WP:CORP. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only press releases and passing mentions. They have some notable clients, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. The claim of pro bono work for an Emirati prince is a bit startling: pro bono, really? Is he strapped for cash this month? Hard times chez Qassimi? Wikishovel (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and England. Wikishovel (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

not sure about the exact nature of it but the source mentioned it. might be some sort of emritization initative to support the UAE attract companies? Schumi19799 (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello I did include several non press release sources related to this company and also the press gazette official ranking of the news site it owns. @Wikishovel: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schumi19799 (talk • contribs)

Delete, removing all the PR and SEO blackhat sources, there's almost nothing about the company. The "maybe they are the parent of this racing website" seems really odd. Sam Kuru (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I have clarified their ownership of the racing site now and added some more sources. this is only the second page ive made so im not entirely sure about the threshold... feedback is appreciated.

Those are all the sources I'm able to find so I wont be making more edits. Schumi19799 (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

As before, I've removed advertorials, blogs, and PR/SEO. None of those even make the claim that they "own" the other site, just that it's an advertising partner. I assume the same "entrepreneur" owns both, but that's not supported or material to this discussion. Please stop adding SEO sources - that's not helping. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I sent a message on your person talk package because i had some questions... please reply. also what exactly is an seo source? it all seems a bit arbitrary to me. Schumi19799 (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kuru Schumi19799 (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

It's okay just to keep the conversation here, no need to post to my talk page. You're responded to the COI request that you have no connections to this small SEO/PR firm, which is presumably just a small number of people. Totally not you or your employer, for sure. Got it.

While The Khaleej Times is generally a fine source, the "KT Network" section of the site is paid placement without editorial controls (typically blackhat SEO and press releases).
iBusinessnews is a junk news-skinned SEO blog. The address is a "virtual office" and there are ads on the site for paid placement. Authors are just one or two bloggers, and most of it is LLM-generated. This is not in any way a RS.
Bitzuma is a disclaimed cryptoblog, we don't use those even for crypto-related concerns and certainly not to pretend they support PR/SEO startup notability
LinkedIn is just user-generated material with no editorial control. This one even links back to the KT material, which is just PR

I've also removed some sketchy material that seems to have nothing to do with the primary topic. Maybe the person that runs "Imperium Comms" also runs a random F1 fan site, but that's not clear from the source, nor does it impart any notability on the company. What you're left with is nothing but primary sources (links to the company and a user-generated bio for the owner). None of this meets WP:NCORP. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

But if it's a PR does it even matter as long as it's confirming something in a reputable source? asking for future reference if i decide to make more pages, though it doesnt really seem worth the effort haha.

the source did say they own the site directly... it's not a "fan site", it's one of the largest f1 news sites globally and top 20 sports news in the UK... i did provide a press gazette source for this which I dont understand how you can call it sketchy when it's the most trusted source for reporting on the media industry.

just trying to get an understanding for future... strangely my first page creation went fine even though i only did 10 minutes research and provided just 2 sources.

is there anyway to propose a topic and get other wiki users thoughts before creating? Schumi19799 (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

for instance, can i make a page about Edelman or does that lack notability? Schumi19799 (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Press releases, advertorials, "guest posts", contributor blog posts on news sites are outside of the editorial controls and fact checking for publishers. They are not reliable sources for anything other than "the company said" claims, and often not even that. They are not independent and useless for determining notability, which is a significant hurdle for this company. No one cares about your F1 site.Sam Kuru (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Is there a place to ask for editors feedback to check if a page can be suitable? or better yet, is there a place on wikipedia where editors have proposed pages that should be created??

I want to give making a page another crack but think it's best to do it for a topic thats already highlighted for creation by an editor so I know my hard work wont be for nothing. Schumi19799 (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Schumi19799. The best way to get editor feedback on a topic is to create the article in draft, as you did at Draft:Planet F1. That saves everyone time and effort. Wikishovel (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much I will have a look and find another topic. I wish other editors here were as helpful as you.... seems some of them think spending so many hours here and doing nothing else in life gives them a right to be condescending to newbies Schumi19799 (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I hope you stay on, and keep contributing. And I hope I'm never condescending to new editors, intentionally or otherwise. Have you seen Wikipedia:Requested articles yet? It's a giant set of requested articles that haven't been written yet. There are also WikiProjects with their own lists of requested articles: see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Suggestions. Join a WikiProject in a topic you're interested in, and they'll be glad of your help. Wikishovel (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles is exactly what i am looking for. now I can make pages without worrying that theyll get deleted for lacking notability. thanks very much! Schumi19799 (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

delete fails gng, ncorp Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 02:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete Secondary sources are absent. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion has descended into bludgeoning and name-calling, so I am putting a lid on it now. Everyone, please enjoy the festive season and if you still feel the article is problematic in the New Year, file a new AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Sexual offences in the United Kingdom

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

This article is comprised of lists of uncontextualised references to offenses taken from the relevant statutes, but with one section devoted to rape that contains content semi-duplicated by Rape in English law. ~~It appears from the Talk page that Rape in English law was created becuase the creator of the original page opposed suggested improvements.~~ Sexual offences in the United Kingdom now duplicates the more informative and better structured Rape in English law cf. WP:DUPLICATE gilgongo (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, and United Kingdom. gilgongo (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
~~Speedy~~ Keep ~~per criteria 2a of Wikipedia:Speedy keep on grounds that~~ this nomination is obviously frivolous and vexatious and was therefore unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism and disruption. This topic satisfies WP:GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. There are a massive number of entire books, entire book chapters and entire periodical articles about this subject. Many of these are already cited in the article. The notability of the topic is so obvious that it could not plausibly have been nominated in good faith. The article contains no lists. The content of the article is entirely contextualised. Even if more context was needed, it would be very easy to simply add more context, therefore WP:ATD precludes deletion on that grounds: "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page". In 2010, Rape in English law was split from a previous version of this article on grounds of GNG and that it was imminently about to become WP:TOOBIG, not because of anything that happened in a talk page discussion in 2023: The article Rape in English law was created long before that talk page discussion and has nothing to do with that discussion. Further, the creator of Sexual offences in the United Kingdom (Alan Liefting) did not participate in that talk page discussion, let alone oppose suggested improvements during it; and the creator of Rape in English law, and most of the content now included in Sexual offences in the United Kingdom, did not oppose suggested improvements either, but instead implemented extensive improvements within 24 hours of the start of that discussion. Sexual offences in the United Kingdom does not duplicate Rape in English law, and is any event supposed to contain a summary of that and other articles per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Deletion of this article might violate WP:CWW as material from this article has been copied to other articles. (Since some of the material in this article was split from Rape, I am not sure who wrote all of the original version of this article). The nominator is a WP:SLEEPER account with almost no edits from 2007 to 2024 and then a massive sudden spike in edits in the last two months; and the nominator has made systematically false statements in this AfD. And, having regard to all these facts, I am satisfied this nomination was made for the purpose of vandalism and disruption ~~within the meaning of the speedy keep guideline~~. James500 (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
My nomination was made in good faith for the reasons stated, but I apologise for any misunderstanding of the talk page conversation I refer to. The reason for the spike in my Wikipedia activity is due to my recent retirement. My nomination otherwise still stands. gilgongo (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
How does your nomination otherwise stand? You have not cited any policy or guideline that authorises the deletion of this article, or made any attempt to answer the citation of WP:GNG, WP:ATD, WP:CWW or WP:SUMMARYSTYLE above. James500 (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I see that you have responded to my preceding comment by amending your nomination to cite WP:DUPLICATE, claiming that the article duplicates Rape in English law. There are two problems with that argument: (1) The two articles do not have "exactly the same subject, with the same scope" and they are not redundant either. The vast majority of sexual offences are not rape; UK law, Scots law and Northern Ireland law are not English law; and roughly 75% of the present content of the article has nothing to do with rape, but is instead about other offences. (2) WP:DUPLICATE is part of Wikipedia:Merging. It is a valid argument for merger, but is not a valid argument for deletion. AfD is not the correct venue for proposing mergers, and merger does not require an AfD. And an AfD that only proposes merger falls under criteria 1 of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. James500 (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment I think if I came across this article I would consider either nominating it for deletion, merge, redirect or nuking it and starting again. It's badly structured, three quarters of the sections are lists written out as prose and it doesn't include what I'd expect to see given its title, such as landmark cases, statistics or history. So at this stage I certainly don't think this article meets the criteria for a speedy keep as I don't think the nominator was vexatious, but I am still undecided as the best solution. Orange sticker (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
As far as I can see, deleting the page is impossible due to the requirements of WP:CWW, and those requirements are not something we can WP:IAR. As far as I can see, the minimum we would have to do is a history merge.

Claiming that the article is badly structured, that the prose is poor, or that the article doesn't include what you'd expect, is basically saying that the article is WP:UGLY. Now, WP:UGLY is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: That argument is not compatible with the deletion policy, which sets out the valid grounds for deletion. If you don't like the article because doesn't include what you'd expect, then all you have to do is expand the article by adding what you'd expect it to include. If you don't like the article because it doesn't include landmark cases, statistics or history, then all you have to do is add landmark cases, statistics and history to the article. If you think the prose is poor, all you have to do is rewrite the prose. If you think the article is badly structured, all you have to do is change the structure to whatever you want the structure to be. WP:ATD says that we don't delete articles because they need to be rewritten, and that AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. If we deleted every article that was as "bad" as this one, we have to delete more than half the articles on the project, because most of them are a lot worse.

That said, I am not entirely sure why you think the article is "badly structured" when it follows a structure similar to that used by more or less every book on the subject.

Anyway, while attempting to use deletion as an alternative to improving an article is a frivolous and disruptive WP:POINT misuse of the AfD process, criteria 2 of WP:SK seems to now be inapplicable because another editor has opposed it. Therefore I am moving to keep on grounds that the topic is notable for satisfying WP:GNG, the article does not have any problems that cannot be fixed by expanding it, and possibly by rewriting parts of it, and such an expansion or rewrite would be required by WP:ATD. James500 (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that an article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field, it would help if you could explain the utility of the page. It contains lists of unexplained terms with hatnotes to main articles (which, incidentally, are also mostly unexplained, but that's a separate issue). So for example, if a reader is curious about the offense of inducement, they are presented with a citation from a statute, but are none the wiser. And why does it have a deftiniton of rape (which is simply one offense) that overlaps with Rape in English law, yet does not link to that as a main article? gilgongo (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
No, I should not explain the utility of the page, because WP:USELESS is one of the arguments to avoid. As that essay points out, if a topic is notable, then an article on the topic is considered useful because the topic is notable. WP:ATD says that if you don't like the fact that something in an article is not explained, then you edit the article to add the explanation, not delete the article: That is policy. How can Rape in English law be the main article for Scotland and Northern Ireland? And why can't you add the link yourself like this? Why do you sealioningly ask me to do it for you? James500 (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete while the subject is notable, it is already adequately covered in other articles (mainly Sexual_assault#United_Kingdom, Prostitution_in_the_United_Kingdom, Laws_regarding_rape#United_Kingdom and various topics in Sex_and_the_law), none of the content needs to be merged and a redirect is not appropriate as there is no single suitable target page. For the same reasons I also think Sexual offences in English law,Sexual offences in Scots law and Sexual offences in Northern Ireland law can be deleted. In general, "sexual offences" is too broad a topic for anything other than a list, and a list of sexual offences in the United Kingdom would be a redundant fork. These pages are not quite lists (see the number of red links) and not quite articles. Orange sticker (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
This page is not a redundant fork. A list of sexual offences in the UK, or its constituent countries, would not be a redundant fork either. WP:REDUNDANTFORK refers to "two articles about the exact same thing, or any two pages of the same type covering the same thing as each other". If there was an article on something like Sex crimes in the UK then this article would be a redundant fork: but no such articles exists. Likewise, the three national articles are not redundant forks of something like Sex crimes in the law of Scotland, because no such fork exists. WP:REDUNDANTFORK does not apply simply because there is an overlap between two pages. It especially doesn't apply when the overlap between two pages is significantly less than 50%, and especially not to an overlap only with small portions of numerous other pages. Nor is an article a fork simply because it is a list.

As far as I can see, the subject is not adequately covered in the other articles, as they are missing most of the offences under UK law, and they are missing most of the information in this article and the three national articles. Frankly, some of the content of some of the articles you have listed is worse than this one and the three national articles. It is often unreferenced and written in unclear language. If this article and the three national articles were broken up, there is content that would need to be merged to quite a lot of places, since it is only found in those four articles. In any event, if there are no articles on UK law, it will be impossible for a reader to navigate to the offences that exist under UK law, because that country has a different set of offences to other countries.

There does not need to be "single suitable target page" for a redirect, in order to have a redirect. If there is more than one "suitable target page" we will link to the primary topic (WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT). If there is no primary topic, we will create a disambiguation page. Since Sexual offences presently redirects to Sex and the law, these pages could redirect there as well. (This is hypothetical since the topic is notable and should have an article).

"Sexual offences" is not too broad a topic for anything other than a list. The offences have, in particular, common features (eg consent) and a common history (eg the law was consolidated in the 1956 Act which was replaced by the 2003 Act, and all the politics surrounding each set of changes) which would have to be written in a form that is not a list of offences. Even if sexual offences was too broad a topic for anything other than a list, that is still not grounds for deletion: Lists are not banned on Wikipedia. A list of sexual offences in the UK, or its constituent jurisdictions would satisfy WP:LISTN, and therefore such a list is notable and should exist. The fact that a list contains red links does not stop it from being a list, or justify deleting a notable list, especially when we know the red links are going to turn blue because they are notable. As far as I can see there is no policy or guideline forbidding a page that is "not quite a list and not quite an article". Even if pages were required to be either "pure list" or "pure article", that should still not result in deletion: WP:ATD would require the page to be rewritten so that it becomes "pure list" or "pure article". James500 (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
The main question is, what is the encylopedic value of these pages to the reader? We would not create a page listing the fact that there are several types of cog wheel, various pneumatic cables, bolts of numerous species, and several spring assemblies in tractors, and the same for cars and motorbikes, for example, without attempting to explain anything about those. Is your intention that the articles @Orange sticker refers to should be lists of things that require their own pages? gilgongo (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
No that is not the main question, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is one of the arguments to avoid. James500 (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep - this is a much better article than the Rape in English law, and English law doesn't include Scots or Northern Irish law, so there's no way it could serve as a replacement for this one. Rape is also narrower than "sexual offences". As for the argument that it could be better covered in a host of other articles, that's sort of the problem with a lot of knowledge on Wikipedia - we're missing an awful lot of "middle" articles that lie between the big overviews and the smaller, more granular stuff. This fits perfectly with WP:SUMMARY. Guettarda (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep The topic obviously passes WP:GNG. As the article creator said, it is intended to be a summary article for the UK. He also wrote more extensive articles on Rape in English, Scottish, and Northern Irish law, deliberately choosing this article structure. Additionally, the topic of the article, in principle, is not limited to laws and should cover other aspects of sexual offenses, which it does by including a graph with statistics. I also think that sexual offenses is a broad enough topic to be covered for each country separately, and more in depth than in broad articles such as Sexual assault and Laws regarding rape. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete as WP:CFORK of the list per@Orange sticker. Each paragraph is also just an indiscriminate unreadable list. I could maybe get behind it if it was a legible table with any sort of information about it but even then I'm not entirely sure I'd change my vote. As it stands this needs WP:TNT. Revolving Doormat (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:CFORK is not grounds for deletion or anything else, because some CFORKS are WP:GOODFORKs. In particular, WP:SPINOFF and WP:RELART both fall within WP:GOODFORK, and this page falls under both of those. Orange sticker failed to demonstrate anything within WP:BADFORK at all, and is simply trying to delete every article on this topic in order to make the entire topic go away. The content is not indiscriminate or unreadable. It does not satisfy any of the criteria in WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Tables are often illegible, unreadable, uneditable, cruft and spam. If you are going to invoke WP:TNT, I think you should explain why whatever you think is wrong with the article cannot be simply be fixed. At this point, deletion looks more like WP:DEMOLISH even if there is something wrong with the article. James500 (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete I support deletion. Even if the subject is generally notable I do not think this article works as an encyclopedia article as it is. It reads mostly like a list of offences, with very little explanation, and the reader is often sent to other pages without being told clearly why these offences are grouped together. The material is already covered better in other pages. Ismeiri (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:DETCON says consensus "is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" (emphasis added). Accordingly, arguments in deletion discussions should be based on policies and guidelines. And the arguments in the preceding !vote don't seem to be based on any policy or guideline at all. Reading like a list is not grounds for deletion under the deletion policy, and even if it was, the policy WP:ATD would apply anyway, and would require you to rewrite the page so that it doesn't read like one. The material is self-explanatory, inasmuch as its meaning should be obvious to anyone who understands English. If our readers can speak English, they should know, for example, what the word "prostitution" means. The material therefore adequately explains itself and does not need further explanation. Even if it did need further explanation, the policy WP:ATD requires that you add the explanation instead of deleting the page. The reader is not "sent" to other pages at all, let alone often sent to other pages. Even if the reader was sent to other pages, there there wouldn't be anything wrong with that. And even if there was something wrong with the links in the page, WP:ATD would require you to remove them instead of deleting the page. It is entirely obvious why these offences are grouped togther: They are offences under the sexual offences Acts, and they are classified as sexual offences by legislation and law reports, by treatises and other law books, and by law journal articles. If, for example, an offence relates to prostitution and is created by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, why would you need the article to explain why it is "sexual"? I think our readers know that prostitution is sexual, and that a statute called "The Sexual Offences Act 2003" is going to be about sexual offences. The arrangement of the material within the article follows the conventional categories created by legislation and recognised by sources such as treatises. For example, you would expect a prostitution offence to be grouped with the other prostitution offences, and not included in the section of the article on sexual assault. The material is not covered better in other pages, and much of it is not covered at all. James500 (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete - WP:NOTSCANDAL - Not sure why Wikipedia should have an article that details sexual offences in threir areas of the UK. In fact I don't see why specific geographic area of the world would have an article about its own sexual offenses. — Maile (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
You know perfectly well that WP:NOTSCANDAL does not apply. A description of the laws created by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 and related legislation is not "something heard through the grapevine" or "gossiping" or "about living people" or "libellous" or "infringing someone's right to privacy" or "attacking the reputation of another person" within the meaning of WP:NOTSCANDAL. You know perfectly well that the reason Wikipedia has an article on this topic is because it satisfies WP:GNG due to books like Rook and Ward on Sexual Offences, Card, Gillespie and Hirst on Sexual Offences, Richardson and Clark on Sexual Offences and all the other books about the UK law of sexual offences, that are specifically about the UK and exclude the laws of other countries, because the laws of other countries are different to the UK and irrelevant to UK law. James500 (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Of course WP:GNG applies, but I did not nominate this aticle for deletion on grounds of notability. Please do not deflect the discussion. The central issue is that it duplicates and does not support the other articles mentioned. If you think it does, then you need to explain how the reader benefits from reading it (or might do if suitably expanded). gilgongo (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
I know you didn't claim the topic is non-notable, but Maile66 did claim that it fails GNG. James500 (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Agree that WP:NOTSCANDAL does not apply here. There are already articles that describe the laws covered by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 and Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 so I don't see the need for a standalone article called Sexual offences in the United Kingdom, I still think it is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Orange sticker (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
I accept that the overlap between the UK article, and the articles on the three jurisdictions (the single jurisdiction of English and Wales, and the two jurisdictions of Scotland and Northern Ireland) is the most convincing argument presented against this particular article. I accept that you could make a case for completely splitting the UK article into articles on its three component jurisdictions, though I'm not sure certain what the page names of those articles should be. I accept that the information in this article does seem to be specific to one of those three jurisdictions, rather than being about the UK as a whole. I would not personally have created an article about the UK as a whole, as Alan Liefting did. I would have created separate articles for the three jurisdictions, and possibly an overview article for Europe, eg , rather than the UK. I did not mention this because, up to now, no-one else had advanced this line of reasoning. James500 (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
I accept that you could make a case for completely splitting the UK article into articles on its three component jurisdictions to be clear I'm not suggesting this and it doesn't seem any one else is either, so I'm not sure what you're accepting here. As I've said repeatedly, this topic is already adequately covered on several other articles. Orange sticker (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
I am sorry if I misunderstood you. So, to clarify, I accept that it might be possible for this topic to be adequately covered in an article on England and Wales, another article on Scotland, and a third article on Northern Ireland. But it isn't adequately covered in such articles yet. James500 (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

But you created three separate articles, Sexual offences in English law, Sexual offences in Northern Ireland law, and Sexual offences in Scots law. So, according to you, the UK article is redundant? Kelob2678 (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
@User:Kelob2678: Those three articles only cover law. They prima facie don't necessarily cover criminology, crime statistics, sociology, politics etc. They also don't presently include the summaries in Sexual offences in the United Kingdom#England and Wales etc. What I meant was that, in theory, you could have separate articles on Sexual offences in England and Wales, Sexual offences in Scotland and Sexual offences in Northern Ireland. I was under the impression that Orange sticker was proposing some kind of reorganization along those lines, but since it appears I misunderstood him, and nobody else wants to perform that kind of split (and presumably or possibly re-merger of the law articles into Sexual offences in England and Wales etc), I don't think it matters. James500 (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
True, but the article in its current state mostly focuses on the law and doesn't properly cover criminology, crime statistics, sociology, politics, effectively functioning as if its title is Sexual offences in the United Kingdom law. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Those three articles have been deleted under WP:G7 with a rationale of "This is not an agreement with anyone else's rationale for the deletion of anything." I decided that I could not take the risk of those pages being WP:CIR nominated today for AfD by Orange sticker if this article is deleted, which might happen today, due to the number of WP:CIR delete !votes in the last week. James500 (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Christopher Elliott (composer and arranger)

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

This is a WP:REFBOMB, with no WP:SIGCOV that I can discern. There are some quotes by or involving him in some of the sources, but all in the context of something else - just passing mentions. asilvering (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. asilvering (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No policy based arguments or any !votes yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment: The issue is that he's not even mentioned in the most reliable sources. He's associated with many hits, much in the way that an executive producer might be. I need to be convinced that this is not a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete This is a large, well-written article, but Wikipedia is not for promotion. The article claims he is connected to an Oscar-winning movie, the source describes his role as follows, While the demands of the filming process forced the chopping and changing of the songs, Marius was in contact with London‑based composer Chris Elliott, who had the job of arranging many of the orchestral parts. "We were emailing back and forth," explains Marius. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete. I deleted two sections as WP:BLP violations. I looked at quite a few of the sources. While a number of those could be used to fill in details if there were some sources that provided WP:SIGCOV, I don't think that there are adequate sources for an article at the moment. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. I see no clear support for the nomination. Owen× ☎ 12:39, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Star Radio (Cambridge and Ely)

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

Nothing in the article shows this station is notable. The sources, and my BEGFORE, show only routine coverage at the catalogue or passing mentions, failing WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep: Articles about radio stations which cover a single city and its surrounds are seen as notable enough for them to be included on Wikipedia. Therefore this article clearly passes this long established notability test. Rillington (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
@Rillington So it's notable because WP:ITSNOTABLE? Recursion (computer science) is fun but not a very good argument in deletion. And there is no "long established notability test" - or, on contrary, it fails it, since WP:BCASTOUTCOMES clearly says: "Licensed broadcast radio and TV stations are generally deleted if they lack significant coverage in reliable sources." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep: Plenty of notable references. WP has better things to do than to chase down articles that have been contributed to hundreds of times over more than twenty years. Smb1001 (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
@Smb1001 Which references are "notable"? Can you elaborate, in the spirit of WP:THREE? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
This article definitely needs bolstering. I've tried with references, but my access to the good ones all stops in the early 2000s (Cambridge paper and Broadcast). The problem with the sourcing is there's nothing really in-depth. For a radio station that had a 27-year run as an independent entity, that's a bit disconcerting. Like, there's enough there to put a barebones history in. But one or two in-depth articles would make me feel a lot better about this station having an article. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to very specifically reply to the above !votes from Rillington and Smb1001. Arguments like Rillington's used to carry the day on this encyclopedia. Then we had the 2021 NMEDIA RfC. It told us in no uncertain terms that our longtime direction was too lax—and I should know, I instigated the whole thing. If you haven't been around the topic area in the last few years, this is a mindset shift that can be alien to you. And the sourcing I have found is passable but just short of where I'd truly want to see it to make a keep !vote of my own. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep per sources found by Sammi Brie, which are passable. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 19#Prince William (William Arthur Philip Louis Windsor)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Mornflake

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

Others

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Pop Club (via WP:PROD on 17 September 2025)

Redirects

Templates

England

Citelynx

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them contained any significant coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, Transportation, United Kingdom, and England. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NORG (not even close to GNG). Absolutely nothing in Newspapers.com too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to List of defunct airlines of the United Kingdom. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Academy 360, Sunderland

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

Another day, another UK secondary school article which doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL. News articles are present, but only local and trivial coverage from the same kind of outlets as in the deletion discussion for a nearby school. Athanelar (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and United Kingdom. Athanelar (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 16:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep - Almost nothing from Academy 360, but the school is the successor of Pennywell Comprehensive School, and that turns up more (although the books Four Winds Nomad that is not a primary source is a self published autobiography without significant coverage). There is, however, significant coverage in - Harris, A (2006) Improving Schools in Exceptionally Challenging Circumstances Bloomsbury Academic. and - Potter, J. (2006) Active Citizenship in Schools. Taylor & Francis. That's two good publishers, and info on the school is secondary. There's also the usual slew of news reporting, both under the news link, and also in newspaper archives, e.g. . News reporting is usually primary, so we would need more careful review of those before accepting they count towards notability, but the coverage is sustained (my first hit was from 1965, as the school was still being founded). It is almost certain that this extensive coverage allows a page to be written, and the books alone should carry this over the line for GNG/NORG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep per Sirfurboy. It is not clear what the nominator means by Another day, another UK secondary school article which doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says that schools are usually notable. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Well, no, it says independent accredited degree-awarding institutions are often notable; which secondary schools in the UK are not.

It actually specifically says of secondary schools that following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, Athanelar (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Looks like "independently accredited degree-awarding institutions" refers to tertiary institutions. I thought that schools were also "degree-awarding". However, in that case, it is unclear what "accredited" means. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
I think there's an English usage question here. In American English, a university is a school and will award higher education degrees. This school, however, is in the UK, and it refers to secondary education, not higher education. It's not a degree awarding institution - students take the externally administered and state exams (GCSE and A level). But it does, in my opinion, meet WP:NORG, so we don't have to worry about the presumption of notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Institute of Contemporary Chinese Studies

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

@Aloneinthewild PROD'ed this about a week ago, and I de-PROD'ed it to see if I could find sources. I've done the BEFORE searches and I can't put it over the line so I'm bringing it to AfD.

The article was completely unsourced except for university materials. I have made changes<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Institute_of_Contemporary_Chinese_Studies&diff=1328683935&oldid=1328679893> commenting-out brochure-type language changing tenses, just trying to make sense of it "as if" it is kept. I found one source for notability, and another which is an interview of the school head with BBC - this should help with verifiability but marginal or ineligible for notability.

This article is not an orphan. It could be linked to Steve Tsang who was the last director. There was some press coverage generated by Tsang's comments in 2023 but I couldn't find a substantive history of the centre, and some of it is Telegraph/Times hype about party members.

It could be either under Institute or School of Contemporary Chinese Studies. If kept, I suggest it be renamed to School as this was its identity for the last/longest period of its existence. Oblivy (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, and China. Oblivy (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete I can’t see how this passes WP:NCORP but thanks for trying. Mccapra (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

25 Years (Hawkwind song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. No significant coverage. The only reference in the article, The Great Rock Discography: only has a track listing of the album. Redirect to 25 Years On? Mika1h (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. Mika1h (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to 25 Years On. This article dates back to 2007 when the notability requirements for song articles were more lenient, and it was created by an editor focused on Hawkwind-related articles. This single seems to have been listed in a book because a printing error turned some vinyl copies into collector's items. Under today's standards that's just not enough coverage and otherwise the song is just one entry on its parent album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Eric Renault

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

Recently AfC accepted BLP of an economics professor. Original page was by COI author, and contained masses of puffery. After removing most (but not all) of the bloat I see no real evidence of notability. Scotus h-factor is 29 with ~4k cites, too low for WP:NPROF. I am not convinced by the awards, for instance that a "Journal of Econometrics Fellow" is senior enough to count. I note that many of the sources are marked as "inactive", i.e. the DOI is wrong or similar, suggesting LLM and AI hallucinations. (Earlier versions show definite LLM indications in Quillbot.) Ldm1954 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and England. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment I based my acceptance on a named professorship, and on an elected fellowship. I am content whether this is deleted or kept - either wil improve Wikipedia. I shall remain neutral. It was full of overblown material and greatly in need of serious cullig of extraneous puffery. I can see why Ldm1954 has edited it so severely already and why they considered it was worth nominating for edeletion. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:12, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment I just checked some of the DOI's which exist. I did not check all, just 5. Of these 3 are wrong, clear AI hallucinations. In retrospect I probably should have done a G15 CSD, I wont change it now. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Draftify as an alternative to WP:TNT. He does clearly pass WP:PROF through the named professorship at Brown (#C5, which can be verified but not from the 404 sources in the article) and also the one at UNC if that can be independently verified, and through heavily cited publications (#C1, quadruple-digit citation counts for "Stochastic volatility", "Indirect inference", and "Long memory in continuous‐time stochastic volatility models", and many more with triple-digit counts), at least. But the AI stink here needs a lot of effort to wash off. In the meantime it should not be in article space. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

2026 The Hundred season

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

No significant detail about the event is known yet. It's WP:TOOSOON for now. Vestrian24Bio 13:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and England. Vestrian24Bio 13:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Draftify As an WP:ATD. It is WP:TOOSOON. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Move to draftspace as in next few months (probably 4-6 months), there will likely be enough information for this article, but not right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

List of English cricketers (1851–1860)

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

As per this discussion, the list is not notable as a group. It contains no meaningful information, and it fails WP:NLIST. It completely lacks reliable sources about the group as a whole.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

All fail NLIST. Jack (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Cricket, and England. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

~~Keep but section~~ Comment: These lists seem to fit the notablity criteria for NLIST since they relate to First-class cricket by date, but might be more useful sectioned by something else (batting averages or something else that cricket fans might appreciate?) gilgongo (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

That's fair comment, but doing it would be a massive task, and we'd just be replicating one of the online statistical databases. They cannot meet the NLIST criteria as a mere collection of names without group verification. Jack (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I see they're not all first-class cricket players (not sure what gave me that impression). Most seem to be in Category:English cricketers but others not (unless that's just a mistake). But even if the non-English players were removed, this makes me think I'm confused about how NLIST relates to WP:CAT! gilgongo (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete all: these are all just lists of links with no informational content and redundant to categories. Vestrian24Bio 10:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete: I am now persuaded by @Vestrian24Bio observations. gilgongo (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, gilgongo, you need to strike the original vote, as otherwise you would seem to have voted twice. Thanks again. Jack (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Piriform Software

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

Not independently notable outside of CCleaner, fails WP:CORPDEPTH for standalone articles of companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, Software, and England. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Avast or CCleaner or delete: This article has many unreliable sources such as WP:BLOGS and those that are reliable are about Avast's acquisition of Piriform, rather than being about Piriform as an entity. Either redirecting the page to the parent company or the product, both of which are notable, would be fine. If not, I see no reason to oppose deleting. 11WB (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to CCleaner. The article subject is mentioned there and it is a plausible search term. Pavlor (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Jelena Džankić

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Orphan article. The sources are mainly primary, the 2 last sources are not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Politics. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bulgaria, Italy, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment She has authored a book with at least two reviews and another with at least one. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep. Those "at least two reviews" are actually only one review, linked from two different sites. But I found and added eight reviews of three books to the article, enough I think for WP:AUTHOR despite one of the three being an edited volume. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Institute of Contemporary Music Performance

AfDs for this article:

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

This article does not include significant independent coverage from reliable secondary sources, appears to rely heavily on self-published or primary sources, and may not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for organisations (WP:N). As written, it reads like promotional content rather than an encyclopedic article. For deletion review under WP:Articles for deletion. ~2025-41481-71 (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of anonymous editor--above text is copied from article talk page. I am neutral at this time. --Finngall ^talk 23:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 00:13, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

West Midlands Bus route X10

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

Current article length not justifying the criteria for it to stay. I've searched on Google and couldn't found any significant sources and materials that would help expanding the article. And nothing special initially for this bus route, neither branded nor significant for its history, with very limited or even no online sources or materials mentioning its history. Hlfxcuc (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep This actually has 5 sources from 3 separate independent publishers, so appears to be notable. Most of the bus route articles written by the user that wrote this page that were nominated for AFD survived. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Couldn't find any sources to establish notability. They were all just passing mentions. Despite the above user saying it has 5 independent sources, only 2 of them, both from Express & Star, have significant coverage. DAmik001 (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

May I also add that they both seem to cover the same event, a route change to this bus route. One of them just covers a discussion about the changes and the other talks about them being introduced. They also are WP: PRIMARYNEWS as they just repeat what people said. DAmik001 (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep Two sources with significant coverage (per above) is enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. --Garuda3 (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep Route seems notable per coverage. Seasider53 (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Not seeing the notability here. Sources are predominantly local level and there is not much in the way of a lengthy history. Content is mainly routine coverage. Ajf773 (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete all but one source is local WP:RUNOFTHEMILL/WP:PRIMARYNEWS coverage, the other at keybuses.com seems to be a passing mention in a comment piece. Does not meet WP:GNG. Orange sticker (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete We rarely keep individual bus routes, needs more than local routine coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The Malfated

AfDs for this article:

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

I declined the speedy as I don't see this as a G11, but nor to they appear to meet N:MUSIC. Likely a copyvio from an offline source Star Mississippi 03:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Star Mississippi 03:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete - GamerPro64 07:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete article is unreferenced, and there is no evidence via the usual avenues it can be referenced. ResonantDis_tortion 23:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Greater Manchester bus route 409

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

Non-notable route whose 'History' section appears to be partially generated by ChatGPT; see 'Mancunian1001' blog cite URL and second para, which according to GPTZero has a 100% AI-generated rating. Hullian111 (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Hullian111 (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete per WP:LLM CabinetCavers (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. All sources on the page cannot establish notability as they are either primary, unreliable or are not significant enough. I couldn't find any sources that make the route notable. DAmik001 (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom and other comments. Article creator is blocked and many similar articles created by them have also been deleted for similar reasons. Ajf773 (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete, nothing special for the route initially (as neither prior branding nor something significant for its history), making it tough to establish notability. Plus, finding adequate sources regarding bus routes outside London was relatively challenging. That's why you'll found only a handful of bus route articles here in Wikipedia aren't London bus routes. Hlfxcuc (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete current sources don't establish notability, can't find anything other than WP:RUNOFTHEMILL news coverage, including a brawl which recently broke out on one of the buses. Orange sticker (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete Individual bus routes are rarely notable. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Raymond Sargent

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSIC. Almost all citations are primary sources. Aneirinn (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete – Lacks independent coverage. Svartner (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 03:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete I searched for his name on newspapers.com for March 2009 and couldn't find any obituaries. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Sourcing in the article is largely primary. I can bring up about a dozen obituaries for a variety of people with this name, none for this person. I don't see anything about this person in my search... Has been tagged for almost 20 yrs with no improvement. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete per above discussion. I'm always confused by people (friends? fans?) who write articles about another person, but leave no hints or explanation for us to get more information. This person had a common name, so searching for more citations without context is impractical. Bearian (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete — there isnt in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GNGs ~2025-40198-86 (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep - Trouble finding the obit may be because he was using a stage name, but I found it and have made a couple other improvements (though the article needs cleanup), citing a brief review in an academic journal and a newspaper preview. His archived website quotes about a dozen reviews, mostly in local papers, so they're out there to be found. Adds up to notability. BrechtBro (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Doc Butler

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

No significant coverage found. Article cites mostly just listings and movie pages. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 10:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Entertainment. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 10:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. No significant independent coverage, and his roles are minor and sparse. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete – Fails in WP:NACTOR. Svartner (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment I am curious to know why it was accepted in Afc as a C-class article and moved to mainspace at the first place, there are no signs of significant coverage to begin with. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 08:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete. No significant coverage. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete. I did not find evidence of notability. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Kate Natkiel

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

Fails GNG and lacks SIGCOV. All I could find was non-independent sources or mentions in match reports. Dougal18 (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Minimal secondary coverage. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete- not finding enough SIGCOV sources to suggest notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Al Kingsley

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

This article is supported almost entirely by passing mentions or primary sources. The most notable coverage was a single review of a book he wrote, everything else is a primary source or brief. I searched online and he only appeared on non-reliable sources, like personal websites and podcasts, or in pieces he wrote himself. aaronneallucas (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. aaronneallucas (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Enervation (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete. There is not enough here or out there for this to meet WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Certainly Keep I found him on Forbes and multiple other prominent news places so end the thing he got both the significant coverage and was notable enough with high achievements and awards, I just added those to the references AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete - "prominent" does not mean reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ I found his extremely reliable London gazette official record and just added it, you cant let the page go anymore and it must stay forever https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4783341#:~:text=Notice%20details,ID:%204783341%20Notice%20code:%201129 AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
not passing mention at all check it out AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate keep vote struck. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
ok I wont do that, but tell them my new reference that will definitely save him for being deleted AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Team Soho

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

Appears to fail org notability. A company that was created from Sony Computer Entertainment Europe in 2002, but only listed on two The Gataway games, with one being with London Studio and the third being canceled. If I understand correctly, the lead says closed the same year 2002 but the infobox says 2008. Appears the relevance period is from 1994 to 2002, but then the article name is rather misleading and the 1996 Next Generation is the only source that covers that period. IgelRM (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United Kingdom. IgelRM (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete – Fails in WP:NCORP. Svartner (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete – fails WP:NCORP Afr (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to The Getaway (video game) or Sony Interactive Entertainment. WP:ATD works here. Go D. Usopp (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete or Merge. Per above. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Alexander Fettiplace

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

WP:Notability. Being a member of a wealthy family does not make one notable. All references are genealogy citations that the average person would be in. Docmoates (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Docmoates (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Draftify. Some source, though about the family, not the person: https://www.berkshirehistory.gowerweb.co.uk/articles/fettiplace_family.html. Better Nuncio (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep because I found some full dedicated mentions on him on some sources that were not just passing but reliable sources like the house of Commons or other journal books, even your private neighbor on the street could be on those genalogy references but not on those new references I added, which are reliable look at them AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Vallentine Mitchell

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

I was unable to find any significant coverage of this company in any source, it is all reviews of books they published and passing mentions in stories about Frank Cass. However, searching for book publishing company sources is uniquely annoying due to the mass of hits for books they published, so I could have missed something. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and Judaism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep: While I'd argue that the many, many reviews of numerous books published by this imprint suggests that there is a case for notability not unlike that for books themselves, I found some material that may help us clear NORG. This has a slightly longer detail of the imprint under Cass, discussing its unprofitability. This gives us SIGCOV of "Vallentine, Mitchell" (as it apparently originally operated) as they went through the process of acquiring, translating, and publishing Anne Frank's diary. The same ground is covered more briefly here and with a bit more color here. This was published by Vallentine Mitchell but can be used to put flesh on the bones of the article. Overall, we have an influential publisher that has published a few books that either already have articles or deserve ones themselves and, on its own, appears to also warrant an article. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
I can also confirm what PARAKANYAA said: searching for details on a publisher is not exactly an easy task when there are dozens of reviews and advertisements that tag along with each search. Most of my success came by searching "Vallentine Mitchell" "Anne Frank" on Google; I may attempt similar cross-searches later to see if we can nab a couple other useful sources. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

These sources say very little besides they published the one famous book, so I wouldn't exactly call that coverage significant. Is there a single source that gives them sigcov that is not related to that? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
I'll take another look for sources later, but I would argue that a subject as significant as Anne Frank's diary is capable of producing multiple notable subjects in its wake, the same way that a major company might help produce a notable businessman. When paired with the sources on the company's time under Cass and its role as the publisher of many books reviewed in academic journals and papers of record, I'm inclined to believe that this passes the notability standards for reasons of sustained importance. This is definitely one of the more nuanced cases, though, and it's probably good that you took this to AfD. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep This source provides some coverage regarding the publication of the diary. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep I think WP:NCORP is pretty clear that companies can't inherit notability from their individual products, so the reviews of their books are not inherently useful here. But some of the sources about Anne Frank's diary do give us coverage of the company's activities as a company. In particular, I'd add this book which appears to spend five pages discussing how and why Mitchell published the diary, with rather a lot of analysis of how it fit in with the company's overall business practices. Some of the sources about Cass do too; eg this memorial I found has a paragraph on Vallentine-Mitchell with the kind of overview assessment that is useful for an encyclopedia article.

(Also, some misc passing newspaper coverage that could still flesh out an article: )

It's not necessary for the subject to be the primary topic of the sources, as long as the coverage that exists is significant, and I think the retrospective analytical framing pushes it past routine/passing coverage. Publishers often don't meet NCORP and (as noted) are hard to research so this wasn't a bad nom, but for me I think this one has just enough. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the last keep !vote above is "weak". Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Herman's Hermits Hits

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

Found this under the "suggested edits" tab of my homepage. Fails WP:NALBUM. The name of this EP makes sources nearly impossible to find, but I doubt significant, reliable ones exist. Red Shell Momentum 22:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, United Kingdom, and England. Red Shell Momentum 22:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to Herman's Hermits discography#UK extended plays, where it is listed, as an alternative to deletion. ✗plicit 00:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

G. T. H. Bracken

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

Not a single reference. Google did not turn up anything notable. Docmoates (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, India, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep. Chief Secretary of Madras Presidency, KCIE and CSI. Plus he has a full obituary in The Times. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
@Necrothesp - I am happy to withdraw if you can find any sourcing where he is the focus of the article. I found nothing really documented other than some social media and a few where he is casually mentioned which as you know does not meet the notability standard. To address the obituary in the NYT... I am sure you are aware but just in case you are not, anyone can buy an obituary in the times. See: https://legacy.memoriams.com/network/thenewyorktimes/obituary Docmoates (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Tha actual Times, not the New York Times! The UK's newspaper of record. No, full obituaries were certainly not for sale in The Times. They were only given when staff believed the person was significant enough to have one. And we have always considered a full obit in a major national British newspaper to be sufficient for notability. Plus he had both a knighthood and a companion in British orders. As I said, very clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
My apologies, @Necrothesp but you actually can here: https://www.newsukadvertising.co.uk/the-times/announcements#:~:text=Announcements%20has%20a%20daily%20dedicated,'%20beginnings%2C%20betrothals%20and%20bereavements. Docmoates (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
That's an announcement, not an obituary! An obituary is a biography of a deceased person written by the newspaper's staff. It's not the same as a notice of death. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
@Necrothesp That includes deaths. See: https://www.newsukadvertising.co.uk/Package?publication=times&section=Announcements&category=Deaths Docmoates (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
That's an announcement of death, not an obituary! A full obituary is not a couple of lines posted in a newspaper by friends or relatives. It's an article written by a member of the newspaper's staff. Only notable people are given them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete: I don't see much about this person, Gsearch hits on the Imperial War Museum, seems to be a soldier there with the same name, although I can't copy the link to it... Not sure what's going on, but that's still only a biography. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment I have added a couple of citations verifying some of the biographical information. Search term "G. T. H. Bracken" brings up c. 200 hits on archive.org and pages of hits on Google Books. ResonantDis_tortion 08:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note that Sir Geoffrey Bracken seems to have been more common than G. T. H. Bracken. That's the title of his Times obit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  @Necrothesp would you able to add a citation to the article for the Times Obit please? I am unable to find it. Further note - this 1945 Nature article states the subject was Finance Minister for the Madras Presidency; indicating a potential pass on WP:NPOL. ResonantDis_tortion 13:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  Behind a paywall, obviously.-- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  @Necrothesp I think that is pretty important to the article to show notability. When I click the link I get a university login screen. Can you provide the title of the article so I can for it in an alternative sources. Docmoates (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep Sufficient evidence he was a member of a legislative body so a claim to notability via WP:NPOL. Furthermore Knight Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire contributes to a significant honour WP:ANYBIO pass, and finally there is a lot of sourcing out there, including the WP:AGF Times Obit and other book mentions, which I have not fully analysed but shows potential to meet WP:BASIC. ResonantDis_tortion 19:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep because he had achievments and there are many more references out there if you search "G. T. N. Bracken" so keep it, close da case AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep because he has received honors for his civil service in British India, which would then be India after he left office. Also, the people who served as Chief Secretary of Madras Presidency before and after him have articles just as large, and by looking at them, these two people did not receive such honors. haruka amaranth 04:21, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. No sources primarily about the subject. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep per WP:NPOL. He was as the article states Revenue member of the Governor's Executive Council of Madras Presidency. I understand that he served as the Finance Minister for this federal subject of the British Empire. This newspaper clipping confirms that. Here is sigcov regarding his proposal to establish the "Madras Famine Relief Fund". Kelob2678 (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

David Belbin

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

Not notable, fails WP:BIO. Popcornfud (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Journalism. Popcornfud (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment. So far I've found a couple of pieces about him in the Nottingham Evening Post , short reviews of What You Don't Know, Bone & Cane and The eBay Book in The Guardian , a paragraph about Bone & Cane here , a review of his memoir here and a little bit of coverage of his children's and young adult books here . Still working my way through some of the other children's and young adult books. At a minimum this should probably be redirected to What You Don't Know (David Belbin novel) though. MCE89 (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep. I found an astonishing number of works with one source about them, and far fewer with two for NBOOK than I would really have expected. I notice, though, that several of these are in series -- e.g., Bone & Cane and What You Don't Know are in the same series, which makes for 4-5 reviews of that series, and there were 12 books in the Point Crime series which combined have at least a half-dozen reviews. There are varying views on how the notability of individual books contribute to the notability of a series as a whole, but I think there's a reasonable case at least for the Bone & Cane series. With Love Letters also notable, and so much material in general, that pushes me in favour of having an author bio to home it all.

A full breakdown of what we have, per book:

- Avenging Angel: Several mentions of the book being taught in a school:
- NBOOK? Bone & Cane review from MCE89 (a bit short) review from MCE89 (looks great) appears to be something in this magazine
- City of Crime: a profile review
- Denial: review from MCE89
- Don't Mention the Night: review from MCE89
- The eBay Book: review from MCE89 brief mention another passing mention
- Final cut: brief notice
- Haunting Time: first review from MCE89
- NBOOK!! Love Lessons: a profile analysis in a journal article!! passing mention in this article discussed in this review of a scholarly book! and the book itself is definitely sigcov!!
- Shoot the Teacher: first review (by a child) second review (also by a child) brief adult review
- Suspects: a profile
- NBOOK? What You Don't Know: review from MCE89 The blurb quotes "Joan Smith in The Times" but I haven't been able to locate/verify that this was a published review; if it was, that would be NBOOK here too.

Other finds: there's surely a goldmine in the PhD dissertation he wrote about his own books (to be used as WP:ABOUTSELF of course, not for notability); this piece on library lending has some background info on him; this advice article he wrote could flesh out the article.

If anyone finds second reviews for 2-3 more of those books above, that would push me over to a strong keep. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Imperium Comms

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

Not yet notable per WP:CORP. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only press releases and passing mentions. They have some notable clients, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. The claim of pro bono work for an Emirati prince is a bit startling: pro bono, really? Is he strapped for cash this month? Hard times chez Qassimi? Wikishovel (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and England. Wikishovel (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

not sure about the exact nature of it but the source mentioned it. might be some sort of emritization initative to support the UAE attract companies? Schumi19799 (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello I did include several non press release sources related to this company and also the press gazette official ranking of the news site it owns. @Wikishovel: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schumi19799 (talk • contribs)

Delete, removing all the PR and SEO blackhat sources, there's almost nothing about the company. The "maybe they are the parent of this racing website" seems really odd. Sam Kuru (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I have clarified their ownership of the racing site now and added some more sources. this is only the second page ive made so im not entirely sure about the threshold... feedback is appreciated.

Those are all the sources I'm able to find so I wont be making more edits. Schumi19799 (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

As before, I've removed advertorials, blogs, and PR/SEO. None of those even make the claim that they "own" the other site, just that it's an advertising partner. I assume the same "entrepreneur" owns both, but that's not supported or material to this discussion. Please stop adding SEO sources - that's not helping. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I sent a message on your person talk package because i had some questions... please reply. also what exactly is an seo source? it all seems a bit arbitrary to me. Schumi19799 (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kuru Schumi19799 (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

It's okay just to keep the conversation here, no need to post to my talk page. You're responded to the COI request that you have no connections to this small SEO/PR firm, which is presumably just a small number of people. Totally not you or your employer, for sure. Got it.

While The Khaleej Times is generally a fine source, the "KT Network" section of the site is paid placement without editorial controls (typically blackhat SEO and press releases).
iBusinessnews is a junk news-skinned SEO blog. The address is a "virtual office" and there are ads on the site for paid placement. Authors are just one or two bloggers, and most of it is LLM-generated. This is not in any way a RS.
Bitzuma is a disclaimed cryptoblog, we don't use those even for crypto-related concerns and certainly not to pretend they support PR/SEO startup notability
LinkedIn is just user-generated material with no editorial control. This one even links back to the KT material, which is just PR

I've also removed some sketchy material that seems to have nothing to do with the primary topic. Maybe the person that runs "Imperium Comms" also runs a random F1 fan site, but that's not clear from the source, nor does it impart any notability on the company. What you're left with is nothing but primary sources (links to the company and a user-generated bio for the owner). None of this meets WP:NCORP. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

But if it's a PR does it even matter as long as it's confirming something in a reputable source? asking for future reference if i decide to make more pages, though it doesnt really seem worth the effort haha.

the source did say they own the site directly... it's not a "fan site", it's one of the largest f1 news sites globally and top 20 sports news in the UK... i did provide a press gazette source for this which I dont understand how you can call it sketchy when it's the most trusted source for reporting on the media industry.

just trying to get an understanding for future... strangely my first page creation went fine even though i only did 10 minutes research and provided just 2 sources.

is there anyway to propose a topic and get other wiki users thoughts before creating? Schumi19799 (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

for instance, can i make a page about Edelman or does that lack notability? Schumi19799 (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Press releases, advertorials, "guest posts", contributor blog posts on news sites are outside of the editorial controls and fact checking for publishers. They are not reliable sources for anything other than "the company said" claims, and often not even that. They are not independent and useless for determining notability, which is a significant hurdle for this company. No one cares about your F1 site.Sam Kuru (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Is there a place to ask for editors feedback to check if a page can be suitable? or better yet, is there a place on wikipedia where editors have proposed pages that should be created??

I want to give making a page another crack but think it's best to do it for a topic thats already highlighted for creation by an editor so I know my hard work wont be for nothing. Schumi19799 (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Schumi19799. The best way to get editor feedback on a topic is to create the article in draft, as you did at Draft:Planet F1. That saves everyone time and effort. Wikishovel (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much I will have a look and find another topic. I wish other editors here were as helpful as you.... seems some of them think spending so many hours here and doing nothing else in life gives them a right to be condescending to newbies Schumi19799 (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I hope you stay on, and keep contributing. And I hope I'm never condescending to new editors, intentionally or otherwise. Have you seen Wikipedia:Requested articles yet? It's a giant set of requested articles that haven't been written yet. There are also WikiProjects with their own lists of requested articles: see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Suggestions. Join a WikiProject in a topic you're interested in, and they'll be glad of your help. Wikishovel (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles is exactly what i am looking for. now I can make pages without worrying that theyll get deleted for lacking notability. thanks very much! Schumi19799 (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

delete fails gng, ncorp Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 02:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete Secondary sources are absent. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Christopher Elliott (composer and arranger)

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

This is a WP:REFBOMB, with no WP:SIGCOV that I can discern. There are some quotes by or involving him in some of the sources, but all in the context of something else - just passing mentions. asilvering (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. asilvering (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No policy based arguments or any !votes yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment: The issue is that he's not even mentioned in the most reliable sources. He's associated with many hits, much in the way that an executive producer might be. I need to be convinced that this is not a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete This is a large, well-written article, but Wikipedia is not for promotion. The article claims he is connected to an Oscar-winning movie, the source describes his role as follows, While the demands of the filming process forced the chopping and changing of the songs, Marius was in contact with London‑based composer Chris Elliott, who had the job of arranging many of the orchestral parts. "We were emailing back and forth," explains Marius. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete. I deleted two sections as WP:BLP violations. I looked at quite a few of the sources. While a number of those could be used to fill in details if there were some sources that provided WP:SIGCOV, I don't think that there are adequate sources for an article at the moment. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

London Buses route 44

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

The article has 2 sources, a book named "The Story of the London Bus" that is not Significant coverage and a map from Transport for London which is a primary source and is used to source the route map. On a WP:BEFORE I couldn't find many sources to prove notability, is the only source I can find that seems to pass all the GNG criterias, but that is just 1 source. DAmik001 (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. DAmik001 (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. 17:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC) Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to List of bus routes in London. Not convinced yet there is notability. This appears to be a long standing route dating back to the 1950s, there is certainly enough history on fandom pages but most of these are not backed up by reliable, independent sources, and much of the content is just route changes over the years. Redirect until there is enough content and sourcing to guarantee notability. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More support for redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Note I have now expanded the article using reliable sources----Pontificalibus 08:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
These sources can't be accessed so I am unable to see if they contribute to adding notability on the route as they might be WP: PRIMARYNEWS. DAmik001 (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete individual bus routes are rarely notable and need some than local sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the article's recent expansion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Merge per above. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Merge , until more significant sources were found before restoring and adding to the article. Hlfxcuc (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to List of bus routes in London where it already has a row in the table. Merge not necessary as all the content in the current article is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Orange sticker (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. I see no clear support for the nomination. Owen× ☎ 12:39, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Star Radio (Cambridge and Ely)

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

Nothing in the article shows this station is notable. The sources, and my BEGFORE, show only routine coverage at the catalogue or passing mentions, failing WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep: Articles about radio stations which cover a single city and its surrounds are seen as notable enough for them to be included on Wikipedia. Therefore this article clearly passes this long established notability test. Rillington (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
@Rillington So it's notable because WP:ITSNOTABLE? Recursion (computer science) is fun but not a very good argument in deletion. And there is no "long established notability test" - or, on contrary, it fails it, since WP:BCASTOUTCOMES clearly says: "Licensed broadcast radio and TV stations are generally deleted if they lack significant coverage in reliable sources." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep: Plenty of notable references. WP has better things to do than to chase down articles that have been contributed to hundreds of times over more than twenty years. Smb1001 (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
@Smb1001 Which references are "notable"? Can you elaborate, in the spirit of WP:THREE? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
This article definitely needs bolstering. I've tried with references, but my access to the good ones all stops in the early 2000s (Cambridge paper and Broadcast). The problem with the sourcing is there's nothing really in-depth. For a radio station that had a 27-year run as an independent entity, that's a bit disconcerting. Like, there's enough there to put a barebones history in. But one or two in-depth articles would make me feel a lot better about this station having an article. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to very specifically reply to the above !votes from Rillington and Smb1001. Arguments like Rillington's used to carry the day on this encyclopedia. Then we had the 2021 NMEDIA RfC. It told us in no uncertain terms that our longtime direction was too lax—and I should know, I instigated the whole thing. If you haven't been around the topic area in the last few years, this is a mindset shift that can be alien to you. And the sourcing I have found is passable but just short of where I'd truly want to see it to make a keep !vote of my own. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep per sources found by Sammi Brie, which are passable. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mornflake

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

Others

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

Northern Ireland

Others

Scotland

Charles Patrick Mackenzie

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

Only 1 article links to this. Fails WP:PROF and more generally WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Scotland. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete: WP:BEFORE finds very little at all. Confusingly, there is another Charles Mackenzie who is also an academic in veterinary medicine, but he is Australian and a pathologist. Taking his hits out, I can find almost nothing via the usual channels that mentions our Mackenzie, and no real SIGCOV. I note that the number of articles linking to an article is immaterial to the question of deletion -- the judgement here needs to be made on the notability guidelines. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 23:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep. He received obituaries in volume 32 of the University of Edinburgh Journal and in the 1986 volume of Vet Record, both of which are cited in the article. That's enough to meet WP:BASIC, isn't it? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
I think that would depend on the notability/importance of the source: clearly, obituaries in local news are WP:ROUTINE, while an obituary in a newspaper with a national or international footprint is pretty good evidence of notability. I don't have a particular view on Veterinary Record but the University of Edinburgh Journal would seem to be closer to local news, in my book, especially as he worked there (and therefore the "independent" bit of WP:RS probably isn't met). Wouldn't we expect an institution's newsletter to publish the obituary of a senior-ish employee, regardless of whether they had wider notability? I'm thinking of reading the obituary of a former teacher in a school magazine, for example. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete:Non-notable and despite a few sources, it is clear there is no significant coverage. Coldupnorth (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Merge to Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, which is the only thing he's notable for. PokémonPerson 16:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete He may have received coverage from the school, but it is unclear why the school article should mention him. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete University of Edinburgh Journal is a local university publication and also non-independent in this case. The Vet Record obit is something, but not enough to show notability under either WP:PROF or WP:BIO given the absence of any other substantive coverage or evidence of satisfying WP:PROF on any grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

Wales

S.E.A. Dragons

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

Delete and do not dratify: The article's creator has a history of created articles generated by an LLM (AI), and this article is likely no different; see also Draft talk:Esports Wales#Creation of Article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esports Wales, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Jackson (esports administrator). GPTZero, although not proven to be 100% certain, returns a high probability of LLM-generation for the text of this article.

Even disregarding the use of an LLM, the sourcing is very weak. There is no significant coverage, the majority of sources are game statistics, and the few examples of independent coverage are limited to local coverage in the Welsh press. Secondary-league esports teams and players rarely meet WP:ORG, let alone quaternary ones. Yue ✉ 19:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Organizations, United Kingdom, and Wales. Yue ✉ 19:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
I am nominating the following article for the same reasons: Tadpole (gamer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Yue ✉ 19:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete: per nom. Gommeh 📖 🎮 21:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment - wouldn't it be better to nominate Tadpole (gamer) separately? Individuals and organisations are treated differently when it comes to notability. Sionk (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
The main issues of LLM generation and failing WP:BASIC are the same because they were written (generated) by the same author. I could split the nominations, but the only difference is I would say "does not meet WP:ANYBIO" instead of "does not meet WP:ORG". I contend both articles do not pass basic notability guidelines, let alone the ones specific to their topics. Yue ✉ 18:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
WP:GNG*, not WP:BASIC. Yue ✉ 01:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Sounds like GPT. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Some local coverage but if Esports Wales was not notable, chances for a local team are small. Leaning Delete IgelRM (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom

United Kingdom

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

England

Others

Northern Ireland

Others

Scotland

Others

Wales

Others

Wikious

Boobota

Sagapedia