Gpedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Gpedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to the United Kingdom.
Further information
For further information see Gpedia'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:
HILLBLU lente.png
Scan for United Kingdom related AfDs


United Kingdom

Gobookmart

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

This isn’t irredeemably promotional is why I didn’t tag with a G11. In actuality this is a very bother line promotional non notable article on a website that is in accordance with WP:NOT#INTERNET. The article describes their goals and treats this like a WP:LINKEDIN, the references are very unreliable also. Celestina007 (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Christine Lee (solicitor)

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

per WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, this person is not notable outside of a single event, and does not have lasting/persistent notability. WP:BLPCRIME also applies. Gpedia is not a newspaper or an indiscriminate collection of information. Our focus on her as a person fails certain privacy standards as well, as she is not a politician or celebrity. She is extremely likely to remain a low-profile individual. Therefore, it is almost impossible to maintain a NPOV on her life, given that her coverage will be UNDUE and focused on smaller news reports. — Shibbolethink ( ) 14:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete but don't redirect to Barry Gardiner as he wasn't the only parliamentarian involved. I am the creator of this article and it appears I made a mistake doing so per WP:BLP1E. LondonIP (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Robert Mellors

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

The only reference in this article is to the award of an OBE to this person. I have added a publication but cannot find any additional reliable coverage to include. Tacyarg (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

List of settlements in Bedfordshire by population

List of settlements in Bedfordshire by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

There used to be these two now deleted articles Gpedia:Articles for deletion/List of localities in England by population and Gpedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population. There are also articles for each ceremonial county in England on the same subject based on the same data set and they have the same problems. They have no sources outside the primary ones. The source of which doesnt even split them out by county (many of the areas cross county boundaries) so any county splitting is Original Research. They also use the word settlements which the source doesnt mention at all referring to them as built-up subdivisons. These aricles are misleading. Eopsid (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I am also Nominating:

List of settlements in Berkshire by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Cambridgeshire settlements by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Cheshire settlements by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Cornwall by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Derbyshire by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Dorset by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in County Durham by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in East Sussex by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Essex by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Gloucestershire by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Greater Manchester by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Hampshire by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Herefordshire by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Hertfordshire by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Kent by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Lancashire by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Leicestershire by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Lincolnshire by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Merseyside by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Northumberland by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Nottinghamshire by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Rutland by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Norfolk by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Northamptonshire by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Somerset by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in South Yorkshire by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Staffordshire by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Suffolk by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Surrey by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Tyne and Wear by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Warwickshire by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in West Midlands (county) by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in West Sussex by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in West Yorkshire by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Wiltshire by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of settlements in Worcestershire by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I think it's worth pointing out that I (the nominator) created two of these articles List of settlements in Bedfordshire by population and List of settlements in Northamptonshire by population. Eopsid (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Beyond the sourcing question, these articles have generally not been substantially updated for several years, and the information in them therefore can not possibly be accurate, since population fluctuates year after year. There is no current prospect that these can be kept up to date for the indefinite future. BD2412 T 03:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Fix and keep. I created a number of these originally. Those sources at the time did forward to a county specific list of settlements. What's not being realised is that there have been changes on the source website since and so now the data is not on the landing page anymore. But if you drill down into the website, the data can still be found. The banner above states we consider alternatives to deletion, simply locating and updating the references will correct the problem.
Case in point:
The current source for the Notts article is
https://www.citypopulation.de/php/uk-england-eastmidlands.php?adm2id=E10000024
That now redirects to
https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/eastmidlands/
Of course, this page does not have any Notts specific data on it
But there is a table with all the counties contained within the East Midlands
The new Notts link is there as
https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/eastmidlands/E10000024__nottinghamshire/
On this page it does refer to the table as a list of Settlements, and there is a status column explaining whether they are BUAs or sub divisions.
As to BD2412's concern about outdated stats, the census is done every ten years which are official counts, and anything outside of those is an estimate. 2021 was the latest census and so up-to-date figures will be imminent.
The Equalizer (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The fact that interim data would be "an estimate" doesn't fix the speed with which periodic census data becomes outdated. If the updated title reflected "as of 2021" this would be more accurate, but I would still question the encyclopedic value of such a snapshot in time. BD2412 T 05:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I dont think CityPopulation.de is a reliable source. It has too many Gpedia-isms. This page in particular, https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/cities/ just mirrors the deleted article discussed here Gpedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population. I can tell this because the Office for National Statistics source on built-up area subdivisions which that webpage says it's based on, splits London up into multiple subdivisions but that page combines them, which was something that Gpedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population did. Eopsid (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I found some old discussions which support my claim that CityPopulation.de is unreliable. Gpedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 235#citypopulation.de, Gpedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 339#citypopulation.de and Gpedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 164#citypopulation.de/ Eopsid (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - Here are the reasons for deletion. Neither outdated nor needing improvement are on the list. The sources used are not primary, they're secondary and tertiary, and routine calculations (ie adding output areas) are perfectly acceptable under WP:Synth. --Ykraps (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The secondary source some of them use is CityPopulation.de which I dont think is a reliable source. I dont think there are any reliable sources for settlements split out by county. Eopsid (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep The reasons given for deletion are absurd, and defy basic WP:Common Sense. Some of them need a bit of improvement undoubtedly, such as consistent sourcing, and a consistent definition being used. But deleting them would not improve the encyclopedia. G-13114 (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


I don't understand how the reasons are absurd. The England and UK wide versions were deleted for the same reasons. Eopsid (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Eopsid, CityPopulation.de was used at the time because Nomis didn't have direct links to census area data in those days and the Neighbourhood Statistics census site which did was decommissioned. That London link seems to have been superseded by the agglomeration list https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/agglo/E34004707A__london so again I think site pages have been 'improved'. The data is now better accessible through a primary source, and Template:NOMIS2001 / Template:NOMIS2011 have been developed to take advantage of that, so it would be a matter of updating the refs.
BD2412, usually the article refers to the shortcoming of the census data in the prose of the articles, and estimates are really only given for main settlements (because the data is only provided to district level, but not towns/parishes/settlements as it's never been that granular. There is talk of using other gov data sources to create future censuses because of the expense https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51468919, that methodology is more in line with how estimates are created, but until that is accepted practice I personally think that decade long difference gives the best insight into the growth or not of a settlement and smoothes out any irregulaities. But the articles are definitely notable as there will always be interest in what are the largest settlements.
The Equalizer (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The NOMIS data doesnt split it out by county. So splitting it by county would be Original Research. The NOMIS data also doesnt refer to them as settlements but as built-up area subdivisons. Eopsid (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The problem with the sourcing is that its a misleading use of it. The source doesnt refer to the areas as settlements but as built-up area subdivisions. I'd support moving all the articles to List of Built-up area subdivisons of X county. 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The source also doesnt split by county so they'd need merging by region to avoid Original Research. Eopsid (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Eopsid I think there are bigger battles out there to fight. It's known a given built up area consists of one or more settlements, the vast majority of BUAs are within a given county, only a handful straddle or extend across county boundaries. And the counties of where the BUAs are within is visible in Nomis. It's not a problem to explain in the table that this is the case. The Equalizer (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
These aren't BUAs but BUASDs i.e. Built-up area subdivisions. Please dont confuse the two. Eopsid (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
There are quite a few that cross county boundaries, looking at List of settlements in Gloucestershire by population which contains the largest cross boundary BUASD which is Bristol's. The anomaly has just been covered up with original research. The articles are full of original research where people can't see their town because its not in the source and then add it using a completely different definition to the main one. Eopsid (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete all due to the problems identified by other people with the sourcing and the fact that the only way to resolve said issues is by relying on OR. Which is clearly a bad way to maintain articles. There's also already consensus that this a way to do things that goes against established consensus about these types of articles because England and UK wide versions of similar articles were deleted for the same reasons. It's absurd to ignore prior consensus and rely on OR to justify keeping these instead of just deleting them. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete all Lacks sources establishing that WP:NLIST is met. "List of Towns in XX" would be better achieved via categories. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Dahlia Salah

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

Lacks the notability required to have an article. While she meets the very lax indicators of WP:NFOOTY by having played for a national team, NFOOTY / NSPORTS explicitly state that they only give a presumption of notability, and that in the end WP:GNG must be met. The only non-database source whioh gives some attention to her is an interview by the Gibraltar FA, which isn't an independent source of course. Fram (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Stephen Luttrell

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

No evidence Luttrell meets either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. h-index of 18 is pretty low, and there's nothing else I can find to indicate warranting an article. PianoDan (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not h index that matters, but whether he does notable work that has influence .His has two papers with over 100 citations, which is considered enough everywhere except for biomedicine, . h 18 could mean 25, 24, 23, 22 ,,,,18 which shows no work that influenced the field & is not notable, or 400, 390, 300, 275, 250, ,,,, 20,18 which shows papers than did, and then he is or even 2000, 1950, 1900, 1800,.....19, 18 which is not just notable, but famous. DGG 18:07, 20 January 2022‎
  • Delete. I am not finding much to indicate he made an outsize impact on his field. <500 citations on Scopus in 30+ years is not in line with the citations expected from NPROF C1. JoelleJay (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - On the one hand, Luttrell's paper 'A Bayesian analysis of self-organizing maps' was credited as providing a similar model to the highly cited The Helmholtz Machine (Sem Scholar), which is a very influential work in statistics-informed approaches to machine learning. On the other hand, the bio is poor quality, lacking in genuinely useful information and with a certain amount of puffery. I'll note that I don't attach much importance to h-index in this case: Luttrell did all of his most highly cited work after leaving academia as an independent researcher, writing few papers in this period that generally were well received. An atypical case gives atypical results. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Limited impact on the field in question. --Donniediamond (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Nanthida Rakwong

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

As raised on the talk page, and despite the author's response there and User:Sj accepting it at AfC, none of the references cited in the article, nor any that I could identify, are third-party sources with in-depth coverage of the subject. The Times video is entirely presented by the subject, the few news pieces that mention her by name are only in passing, and the rest are about the organisation's activities and don't directly concern the subject. While her work may be admirable (depending on one's political views), the WP:GNG does not appear to be met. Paul_012 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC) – 02:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notability is established by multiple third-party sources with significant in-depth coverage. One of the key references mentioned already is an in-depth video interview of the subject by The Times [1], which is one of the UK's (and the world's) oldest and largest newspapers that goes through very strict media and journalistic editing criteria. The videos on The Times youtube channel are about leading figures in UK and world politics, current affairs and entertainment, and the subject, Nanthida Rakwong, has been assigned an entire feature video. It is also evident from watching the video that it is produced, presented and distributed by The Times on their official youtube channel. Another third-party source with in-depth coverage, in the references already, is a feature interview of the subject and a co-worker by The News Lens [2], which also describes the work in detail. Other news sources that name the subject do so with significant weight, including the interview section from Apple Daily, which the source reproduced both in video and in text [3]. As a note of clarification, the subject's work is notable and relevant in the fields of international human rights and justice, not only politics. It is also important to be aware that the major media outlets within Thailand are state- and military-controlled, thus go through heavy censorship when it comes to the topics of human rights and the monarchy. Additional context about this within Gpedia can be found here Lèse-majesté in Thailand and here Censorship in Thailand. Recently, the body that regulates the Thai media "advised" journalists not to cover anything regarding criticism of the monarchy (incl. the demands to repel the lese majeste laws). All this makes it very hard for even the most notable critics of the monarchy to be more than "mentioned only in passing" in Thai sources. Please consider this as a reason to give more weight to the international references that do go in-depth. ThaiFactChecker (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment There is enough detail to make an argument for N. I don't think the [admirability] of the subject's work is relevant, but the relative difficulty of finding national sources in censored contexts is. Perhaps: a notability banner to encourage adding more evidence + detail (e.g.: who were the candidates mentioned? what came of the lawsuits + recent work / studies?), and a more detailed discussion on the talk page over a few months, would be a better place and tempo for this discussion than AfD. – SJ + 17:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Darwin's Yearbook

Darwin's Yearbook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

I made this article two years ago with little understanding of WP:GNG and MOS:TV. Now, I can see that it is not notable. It was not reviewed by critics and is essentially a clip show. I suggest deletion or redirecting to List of The Amazing World of Gumball episodes. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

British autocross

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

Synthesis of ideas; autocross in the UK does not seem substantially different than anywhere else. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I did NOT deprod without comment... I ask that you strike this claim. If you read what I wrote, I said it should be discussed and possibly merged [4]. I wasn't going to put an entire essay in the edit summary! A7V2 (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge with Autocross. Not sure where you get the idea that it is "not substantially different than anywhere else"? Clearly it is completely different to the European variety. In any case, it doesn't appear notable enough for a standalone article, and the Autocross article is far from long enough to require splitting. A7V2 (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge to Autocross – I agree with AV72. It certainly isn't notable enough as variant of the sport to have its own article, but it's enough to deserve some distinct coverage, which can be done at the main article. 5225C (talk • contributions) 06:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge to Autocross - Content can be used to expand the article on parent subject. Trout nominator for not seeing A7V2's comment when deprodding. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge with Autocross. --Donniediamond (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge with Autocross Juggyevil (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

List of Grizzly Tales for Gruesome Kids episodes

List of Grizzly Tales for Gruesome Kids episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Unreliable (and dubious) sources with contradicting information in some and lacking evidence in others. It's been hard finding better but it's turned out impossible. —MonkeyStolen234 (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Jason Perry (politician)

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

Non-notable local politician. Not enough independent reliable source coverage to write a substantial article about him—the page currently includes no independent reliable sources. Fails the WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Ralbegen (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep Entirely disagree here. Only started the article this morning, but can easily provide recent source from local papers such as https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/i-couldnt-eat-drink-sleep-20386548, as well as older articles regarding redevelopment of Croydon Town Centre when Cllr. Perry held the planning & regeneration brief when the Conservatives controlled the council prior to 2014. https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/10073390.croydon-ready-to-walk-the-walk-says-councillor-jason-perry/. The Leader of the only Opposition Group on the Council, the first announced candidate for Mayor (again, the largest role of it's kind) being dismissed as "non-notable" doesn't stack up. Croydon's extensive recent coverage in national news owing to it's financial troubles has lead to a great deal of prominence of Council Officials and the Council in the local area. Independent reliable sources can easily be added to the article, and a warning about this at the top until this is done would seem a far more sensible course of action than deletion. Trimfrim20 (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Press releases aren't indepedent reliable sources. Most council leaders aren't notable enough for Gpedia articles, let alone council opposition leaders: it's a matter of meeting Gpedia's notability thresholds. If he becomes mayor of Croydon, he will most likely be notable enough for an article. Not yet, though. Ralbegen (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
This seems to be a rather rude and dismissive response frankly, in particular the first sentence. I've included two separate sources just as an example, one being an interview with MyLondon - which is one of the largest local news sources in London (part of Reach PLC), the other being the Croydon Guardian, one of two major local papers (along with the Croydon Advertiser which is part of MyLondon). I would agree that "most" Council Leaders aren't notable enough - but "most" British Councils are not bankrupt - only two are, and Croydon is one of Britain's largest Boroughs (15th to be precise), and will be the 2nd largest mayoralty in the country (after Bristol), the largest Mayor & Cabinet system in London and is home to nearly 400,000 people and facing the biggest financial collapse, of any British borough, ever.
Croydon has barely been out of the news in London since it's total financial collapse - hence the intense spotlight on the mayoral contest and council control ahead of next year and candidates which already are and increasingly will be prominent. Trimfrim20 (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I apologise if my comment appeared rude and dismissive, I'm happy to explain more thoroughly. The Croydon Guardian article that you linked to is transparently a press release. An interview about a local councillor having Covid does not especially contribute towards making that councillor notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. There are lots of interviews with people who have had Covid, and those interviews don't make any of them notable. None of the facts about Croydon that you've listed here relate to the notability of Jason Perry—or to Hamida Ali or Tony Newman, who don't have articles either. Council leaders (and council opposition leaders) can be notable, but only if they pass relevant notability guidelines. Passing mentions, press releases, a Covid interview, and routine election coverage aren't enough to write an adequately sourced article about. Ralbegen (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ralbegen, that makes far more sense! There are definitely issues locally with independent press which has entered a rapid decline in the past decade - and as a result if it's not in MyLondon it doesn't happen! InsideCroydon covers Cllr. Perry extensively but is a hyper-partisan blog written by a local Labour Party member. Maybe a reasonable compromise is to move the article to draftspace until additional sources are added, and then publish at a later date? I think we can probably both agree that as the campaign heats up (particularly now the Labour candidate has also been selected) there will be far more press coverage (probably by regional and national press as well as London) and at that point there may well be a good case for widespread notability. I think we can both agree that Mayor's tend to have a significantly higher profile than Council Leader's, and as a result a Mayoral Candidate would arguable be more notable than a Council Leader! Think there arguably is a case for an article specifically related to the financial collapse of the council which would discuss Cllrs Newman and Ali (and others) in detail.
Would you be happy to withdraw the nomination and have the article moved to draftspace as a reasonable compromise? Trimfrim20 (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I think the discussion has to take its course over seven days, but I don't think there's anything that'd mean creating an article in draftspace about Perry would be a bad idea. Election coverage is better kept to the election article rather than making articles for individual candidates, and it's usually considered to not contribute towards candidates' notability. If Perry becomes mayor, then I'd expect he'll receive an amount of reliable source coverage that will pass the GNG, and having a draft article ready about him might be useful. Until then, (proportionate) material is probably best kept to 2022 Croydon London Borough Council election. Ralbegen (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ralbegen - I live in the borough, and have to be honest that I think the spotlight on this race will only increase. I think if elected Mayor the case for an article would be indisputable given the directly-elected nature of the role (and given the role will likely be of a similar profile to Marvin Rees, Mayor of Bristol), but I think press attention in the meantime may well pass GNG on its own. We shall wait and see! As nobody else has commented you can withdraw the nomination using the process at Gpedia:Articles for deletion#Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal). If you're happy to do that I'm happy to move to draftspace, but obviously wouldn't be the right thing to do while the nomination is outstanding! Trimfrim20 (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Interviews do not add toward notability. Routine coverage of a person during an election expected of any candidate for public office also does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Women Fetching Water from the Nile

Women Fetching Water from the Nile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Non notable short film. Nothing found in a BEFORE to establish notability. Just because something is from the earliest days of film does not mean it is inherently notable, DonaldD23 talk to me 16:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Denis Alexander, 6th Earl of Caledon

Denis Alexander, 6th Earl of Caledon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

The subject of this article does not conform to Gpedia notability standards. The article simply gives his name and lists his relatives, many of whom appear un-notable too. Emmentalist (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Always a bit unsure about these peerage articles. Basically it's a rich guy with a title they inherit, nothing notable beyond that. They are either all eligible as a class of people, or aren't. This fellow seems non-notable, the article just confirms he existed. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Yeah, basically. They are either all eligible as a class of people, or aren't. In that case per Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Somerset, 6th Baron Raglan: There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete; merge content with Earl of Caledon where Denis Alexander is already mentioned. There exists a Gpedia page for each title; this is consistent with the principle that titles are a category or class which is of itself notable. It is not consistent or logical to have a separate Gpedia article about an individual who has a title and is otherwise not notable since the title, and the reference to each person who has held it, is already the subject of an extant article. Separate articles should only apply where the individual, such as the First Duke of Wellington, is notable for reasons other than the title. This principle should be applied in all other cases where the holder of a title is otherwise not notable. BrightonDave (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Note that most hereditary peers until 1999 qualified for articles per WP:POLITICIAN as members of the House of Lords. This doesn't apply to Caledon, however, as he was an Irish peer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Hawkeye7. There's plenty of coverage of him, even if not especially comprehensive. Entry in Who's Who. Enough to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete @Hawkeye7's point seems to have been fully addressed by @BrightonDave. Denis Alexander, The 6th Earl of Caledon, is included in the Earl of Caledon page. In addition, the argument that an individual is notable because they are in the UK's Who's Who is essentially circular because the Who's Who has an editorial policy of including all title holders. Gpedia must set its own rules. I completely respect arguments to the contrary, and those who are taking the time to make them, but to me it seems perverse for each Earl mentioned at the Earl of Caledon page, and who can have as much biographical material there as anyone wishes consistent with Gpedia policies, should also have a separate article regardless of whether or not they are notable (the Who's Who issue notwithstanding). I agree that if this is actioned it will require the articles of many unknown aristocrats (including, it seems, most of the Earls of Caledon) to have their second, or individual, articles merged with the article for the relevant title. The implications of our decision are therefore fairly considerable. I'm going to ask at TeaHouse if anyone there fancies chipping in. We seem quite evenly balanced at the moment, and in view of the consequences it might be good to have an admin give a point of view? Best regards to all, Emmentalist (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • The author of the "!vote" immediately above is the nominator. -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Yes, that's quite right @hoary Perhaps I confused things there. Apols if so, and thanks. Emmentalist (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
      Not all the Earls of Caledon are lesser light; Du Pre Alexander, 2nd Earl of Caledon was an important figure, with a biography in the ODNB. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Thanks, @Hawkeye7, I agree that the 2nd Earl is notable in his own right and his own article is quite right on that basis.Emmentalist (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. He was an earl, so I imagine that he would have been eligible to participate in the House of Lords; but many Lords didn't and there's no hint in the article that he did. He would have had the right to wear unusual headgear. And he procreated. He was promoted to lieutenant colonel, but there's no indication of that there's anything notable about what he did on his way to this rank. So he seems utterly un-notable (in the normal sense of the word). The nomination: "The article simply gives his name and lists his relatives, all of whom appear un-notable too." As the article is ostensibly about him, I don't see why it would make any difference if his relatives were notable. Of course what matters is Gpedia-notability; and plenty of non-notable people (reality TV show participants, etc) are Gpedia-notable because there's so much talk about them in "reliable sources". But for this fellow, the references all seem very trivial. -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    As noted above, Earl of Caledon is in the Peerage of Ireland, which did not confer an automatic right to sit in the House of Lords. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    Ah, sorry, I missed that. Written above together with it: "most hereditary peers until 1999 qualified for articles per WP:POLITICIAN as members of the House of Lords". In WP:POLITICIAN, I read that article-eligibility "also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them"; I'm not sure that this also applies to people eligible for political office but who rarely if ever made use of that eligibility. But this is beside the point here, as the man's peerage was Irish. -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Customarily for many years now we have included all British/Irish peers, and that weight of custom would probably need a properly advertised RfC to overturn it. The Who's Who entry appears sufficient for verification, I think the Gazette would cover his accession (not sure for Irish peers, tbh) and it would be extremely unlikely were his life not to be covered by local newspapers, at the very least. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete – Some dude who inherited land and a title, married a game show panelist, ostensibly did nothing notable in his role as an officer, and that's basically it. This article may as well belong in a genealogy database. The entry in Who Was Who should mean next to nothing; it's a publication that does so little research on its own tens of thousands of subjects that it compiles its entries by sending questionnaires to the people it writes about and letting them fill it out of their own accord with seemingly little or no fact-checking. While I don't have access to Montgomery-Massingberd & Skyes (1999), it's hard to imagine this subject received more than a couple-sentence blurb even in such a highly specific publication. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a super discussion and thanks so much to everyone who has participated so far. Perhaps a clarifying point here? It is agreed that the UK aristocracy is notable and that each title qualifies for a Gpedia article, including biographical detail on each historical title holder. It's also easy to understand why many people could find such articles interesting and useful. The question at hand is whether those otherwise un-notable figures mentioned there should also have a second article dedicated to them. Again, it is easy to understand why, say, the First Duke of Wellington (i.e. the famous one) or perhaps, as mentioned by @espressoaddict the Second Earl of Caledon, might have such a huge biographical entry that it would distort the page for the title and a second article would be appropriate. But that would seem (imho) to rest on normal standards of notability other than simply being included in the article about the title.Emmentalist (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or, failing that, merge and redirect to Earl of Caledon. (As noted, and while "peerage titles" are often considered notable, every single holder of such title is not automatically considered notable.) There is nothing to indicate that ANYBIO, SIGCOV, or related guidelines are met here. (As noted, other than being the holder of a title [and being listed in a "Whos Who" because of that], there is nothing else here [in the text or the refs] to establish independent notability.) Inheriting land, being in the military and having own families/chlidren? How does this confer notability? Guliolopez (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not a regular Gpedia editor but I do enjoy reading about history and nobility on Gpedia and sometimes I post a comment if it might be useful. Can I suggest that a good way of seeing this subject is to look at the EarlofCaldon article and particularly at the 'lines of succession' section. There you will see that the 6th Earl (Denis Alexander) is listed. Below him is listed his uncle, Harold Alexander. There are big two differences, though, and they're both interesting and relevant here. First, Harold was not an heir (his brother, Denis' father, was the heir) and so would never normally have been an Earl (and presumably would not have a second page in normal circumstances). But second, Harold became a Field Marshal and Governor of Canada and actually an Earl in his own right. This seems to serve perfectly the point that some nobles' lives are honourable but not notable and so their Gpedia entry seems best to stop there - I suggest Denis Alexander is such a case. Whereas some nobles' lives are indeed notable and should have a full Gpedia page dedicated to them like any other highly notable person. Harold seems the perfect example of the latter. I hope this is helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:C12D:C200:CCE1:7C3A:3AD4:30B2 (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. Aside from the Who's Who entry, the subject is also mentioned in this 1 book, where he is described as an "endearingly eccentric bachelor". Surely these sources together are enough to establish notability. Ficaia (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Would you be able to describe what else is said in the book for those who don't have access to it? That was a rhetorical question, by the way, because you seemed to misinterpret the Gpedia excerpt you copied this information from; Alexander's uncle was described as an "endearingly eccentric bachelor". I'm not sure you even read the entire article before voting, given it's clearly stated that Alexander married three times and was married to Marie Allen from 1964 onward, i.e. he couldn't have been a "bachelor". Other editors and I have noted above that the Who's Who entry is almost certainly unreliable due to poor fact-checking and was almost certainly only created not because of anything notable the subject actually did but because of the title they inherited. Those two sources together definitely are not enough to establish notability unless the Great Houses source is quite extensive – say, spanning several pages at least. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC, I don't accept that all nobility are automatically notable. Mztourist (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi, Wikipedians. I hope this is helpful to this excellent discussion. "Who's Who" has been cited by the minority so far who would prefer to Keep. This type of publication, including the UK version, is not agreed as a reliable source WP:RSN as they are self-reporting (i.e. the subject literally writes the article) and not fact checked. WP:GNG is unambiguous that the subject must not be the source of the information:

"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it".

On a lighter note, @TheTechnician27 made me smile: Yes, it is always best to read the article and look at the points made in this discussion before deciding what should happen. That way, you will not describe someone as a confirmed bachelor when they were married with children. As a side note, the notion of the 'endearingly eccentric bachelor' in an old publication may very possibly be a less-than-subtle coded reference which Wikipedian's may wish to think about before citing? All the best to everyone participating, and thanks very much. Emmentalist (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep.Plenty of RS, Who's Who entry, and generally we cover this level of peerage. Also there are some Delete votes who infer by their comments, that they simply don't seem to like the concept of a peer!.. Voting against something because of your personal viewpoint of a concept is completely irrelevant.Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @deathlibrarian. Thanks for your thoughts, but it is best to assume good faith and to be respectful of other editors/contributors. It's also advisable - said with genuine great respect - to read the other contributions before passing your own comments because otherwise you risk repeating the same points other have and missing all the arguments. For your information, it has been argued by many above, including the people you mention in the pejorative, that a number of policies imply (not infer) the requirement to delete/merge the Denis Alexander article. These include WP:Basic, WP:GNG, WP:Notability and that Who's Who is not agreed as a reliable source WP:RSN. There are a number of other policies which likely apply and in the end the closing administrator will give weight to all of these when adjudicating. Finally, the proposal is not to 'not cover' the peerage, but to delete the article while merging the relevant information at the Earl of Caledon article. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Emmentalist for your measured and very polite response. I did in fact ignore the comments about Who's Who, because as far as I am concerned, it is RS. If you note the WP:RSN it doesn't disallow it, it says editors are divided on whether it is an RS. However, some editors here are saying it isn't, I would disagree. Our own Gpedia entry clearly indicates that Who's Who is for notable people - "Inclusion in Who's Who, unlike many other similar publications, has never involved any payment by or to the subject, or even any obligation to buy a copy. Inclusion has always been by perceived prominence in public life or professional achievement"There is another different publication, called the "Maquis Who's Who". I believe that is not regarded as RS for good reasons, however it is completely separate publication.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Per Guliolopez - Delete. Or, failing that, merge and redirect to Earl of Caledon. No RS, 'Who's Who' does not pass RS and is often merely a list of individuals. Unless this individual had a seat in the Lords then he fails N. --Donniediamond (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I will note a lot of people have been talking about Who's Who UK as a reliable source. If you check the actual RS noticeboard, list of sources, WP:RSN it does not rule out the use of UK Who's Who. The RS noticeboard discussions rule out another publication, "Maquis Who's Who" - a different US(?) publication which accepts payment for entries. There is a discussion here on the RS noticeboard about that publication which accepts payment for entry. UK and Australian "Who's Who" do not accept payments. The Gpedia Entry for UK Who's Who indicates that the publication "lists people who influence British life, according to its editors". Certainly Australian Who's Who is well regarded in my country, only notable people are listed in it. People can submit/update their own details once they have gained an entry (and this is a valuable thing as it can assist with keeping information up to date), but you can't simply submit your own bio and you are automatically added, or pay for it to go in...the publication chooses who goes in. As he is listed in Who's Who, my keep vote remains. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:RSP is simply "a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Gpedia are frequently discussed". I'm aware that A&C Black's Who's Who and Marquis' are different entities. From the search results of the reliable sources noticeboard (where RSP sources its entries from), a couple of the first few results stand out. I won't ping these editors for fear of WP:CANVASSing and improperly influencing the discussion, but in one, an editor of around my experience calls "the existence of an entry in the well established British Who's Who a helpful but insufficient condition to establish notability". In another, an administrator does call WW "certainly a reliable source" but goes on to state: "it shouldn't be used as conclusive proof of notability." The most substantial discussion of "Debretts, Whos Who etc" I can find dates back to 2007, but I would keep in mind when reading it that editors were already calling into question the publications' independence and the amount of notabillity it conferred all the way back then, when notability standards were treated far more laxly. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • In regard to these comments, I would be concerned that they are influenced or referring to the dodgier (Maquis etc) Who's Who, particularly if they are challenging its independence. The Gpedia entries for UK Who's Who substantiates it as a selective biographical work, and doesn't raise any issues about it's independence. Certainly, I would ask editors that have some confirmation of the illegitimacy of Australian and UK Who's Who that they should update the Gpedia page for the publication, with the Reliable Source that confirms their concerns. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • To clarify, both of these opinions are expressly referring to "Who's Who (UK)", which is listed in the header of the discussion I'm referencing. The third one, which I've since removed because it was potentially ambiguous, may have been referencing Who's Whos in general. That being said, the fact that Who's Whos are published based on autobiographical information sent in by the subjects means it's clearly not independent in the same way that interviews generally aren't considered independent. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand that part of the logic of people providing their own bio entry information is that it allows for the entry person to keep it up to date, so that it is in fact accurate. I think they are checked to a degree (?).... but I'm certainly not aware of their being issues with the Who's Who entries being incorrect due to people submitting incorrect information. My point is, Who's Who in Australia and the UK is generally well regarded, and if people have some sort of reliable source that says otherwise (apart from their personal opinions), they should provide it so the publication wiki entry can be changed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It would be fair to say, I think, that the status of the UK's Who's Who is ambiguous, eminently debatable and indeed debated across Gpedia (including here). But let's not allow this discussion to be all about Who's Who. It seems clear that Who's Who entries are sometimes used as supplementary sources when there are other reasons for considering the subject of an article to be notable. As @TheTechnician27 quotes another editor, considering Who's Who entries helpful but not of themselves sufficient for notability seems the best policy. Denis Alexander has no other claim to notability. Emmentalist (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Emmentalist I think at this point, as we both have opposing views on the status of UK and Australian who's who, I think it just best that we agree to dissagree; I don't see that changing one way or the other. Thanks for the discussion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge with Earl of Caledon, because honestly, he's already mentioned and frankly, Denis Alexander was a pretty unimportant guy with an inherited title, no money, who married a game show panelist (as stated above) and had no real historical role. Also, as stated before (but in a longer and angrier way) UK Who's Who really isn't a good source. Vdbhi (talk) 7:05 22 January 2022 — Preceding undated comment added 00:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Heaven (Rolling Stones song)

Heaven (Rolling Stones song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Heaven (Rolling Stones song)

Song which does not satisfy any of the musical notability criteria for an individual listing of a song. The song has not charted, and there is no indication that it satisfies general notability. A review of the references shows that they appear to be listings of the works of the Rolling Stones; we knew that.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 The Rolling Stones All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track Book Yes Not checked Yes Yes
2 Nzentgraf.de Listing of all Stones works Yes No Yes Yes
3 Setlist.fm User-generated content Yes No No

This article was submitted as a draft, and was declined as not satisfying musical notability for songs. It has now also been submitted as an article, so that it cannot moved to draft space. I am recommending redirecting to the album, Tattoo You, and would prefer a community discussion rather than redirecting it unilaterally. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Preston Likely

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

Fails WP:NARTIST known for one barely notable local event only. Theroadislong (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, well-sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete not an artist with a a professional career, a body of work and works in museum collections who has received sustained coverage in scholarly journals by qualified professionals. Vexations (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete the newspapers references are either local tabloid (Oxford Mail), free (Oxford Journal), or street (The Big Issue). These would be acceptable in moderation if there were also a few solid references to pass WP:GNG, but I'm not seeing it. Curiocurio (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've thought about this article and its associated AfD in depth over the past week, and my assessment is that it is WP:TOOSOON for this artist. From what I can ascertain from the sourcing and several WP:BEFORE searches is that this artist needs more time to develop their career before they might be notable enough for a WP article. Their work has been covered as "human interest" stories in several local news feeds, which is great, but it is not enough to meet the WP criteria for WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. Their projects sound interesting, quirky and fun, however they do not have, as presented above by Theroadislong, Vexations and Curiocurio a professional career as an artist, meaning exhibitions curated by independent professionals at museums or notable galleries; work included in the collections of notable museums; in-depth articles/essays by art historians or theoreticians in art magazines, art historical or academic journals or books; nor have they developed a new technique, process or procedure for making art (artists have been doing pop-up shows, organizing events, and making installations for many decades, and there needs to be secondary sources stating how and why his work breaks new ground). It seems like his events are a load of fun and are appreciated by the Hull community; however the artist needs more time to develop before they are ready for an encyclopedia article. Netherzone (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Action of 16 January 1916

AfDs for this article:
Action of 16 January 1916 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

1. This is a skirmish within an engagement. Neither primary nor secondary sources consider this material enough to be a battle in its own right. 2. This is written by an indefinitely suspended user with a history of adding essays to wikipedia. 3. It lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. The firefight between a German cruiser and a British cargo vessel on January 16, 1916 is not described as a battle in its own right by reliable sources. It would be better to delete the page and ensure any sourced details are recorded instead in the article about the SMS Möwe 4. Given that this "battle" is not documented elsewhere, it is a new battle as theorised by the creator's original research. This battle honor is not recognized as such by the Kriegsmarine. His creations have the prefix "Action of" and a suffix of the date in British English format, to emulate the manner/format in which certain battle honors of the Royal Navy were recorded from 1847 onwards. Keith H99 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons. These articles contain lots of maybes and probablys. They have a reading list at the foot of the page. They do not have inline citations. These engagements are lacking in significance.

Action of 13 May 1944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Action of 10 November 1944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Action of 5 July 1942 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Any sourced content should be recorded within the articles for U-1224, USS Flounder & USS Growler. Keith H99 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons. These articles contain lots of maybes and probablys. They have a reading list at the foot of the page. They do not have inline citations. These engagements are lacking in significance.

Action of 6 October 1944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Action of 23 April 1945 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Any sourced content should be recorded within the articles for U-168 & USS Besugo. Penultimate addition. Keith H99 (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Above items now listed in separate nomination, as requested.
Articles for deletion/Action of 23 April 1945
Thanks Keith H99 (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons.

Action of 12 October 1950 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What is particularly interesting is that the talk page acknowledges that there is no scholarly source for this engagement.
Talk:Action of 12 October 1950
I deduce it lacks significance. Final edit Keith H99 (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Rename to Sinking of SS Clan Mactavish. This is a reasonable article: I expect there are Reliable sources, even if not cited in-line. Commerce raiding during WWI was severe enough to worry the British government, so that merging this inot a list article might be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I see the sinking of the vessel is recorded in a chronological list as the eighth of fifteen ships sunk or captured on the first raiding voyage of SMS Möwe. Keith H99 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The last part of the article is about USS Pirate. I have cut this, and pasted it into the USS Pirate article.
One of the few citations in the article, which references the loss of two minesweepers, has been added to the Operation Wonsan article, as it was lacking an inline citation for the loss of the two minesweepers.08:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus following separation of other articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Canditv

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

I'm not convinced this meets WP:GNG . Gets a few passing mentions for being a sponsor of a cycling team. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Dickson baronets

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

Unreferenced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG/WP:LISTN, there is no significant coverage at all for the topic of baronetcies created for people with the surname "Dickson". Not a suitable disambiguation page either as it does not actually link to meaningful other topics. FOARP (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment should it not be classified as a WP:Set index article? Thincat (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Part of a huge series on baronetcies per Thincat. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Consistency is important and it makes no sense to have a gap in the series of articles on baronetcies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - This neither disambiguates notable topics, nor is a notable list in itself. No source is provided above to substantiate notability. A set list has the same "criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting" as a stand-alone list per WP:SIA, which means it has to pass WP:LISTN, meaning that multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources are required. In this case there is not even one. Not every list of baronets by surname deserves an article. FOARP (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete, arguments in nomination are compelling, keep argument makes little sense (we don't keep articles just because they are part of a huge series, they have to be judged on their own merits). Fram (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC):

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep.An article on specific 400 year old baronetcies is notable and without doubt useful for anyone using Gpedia to try to research the titles. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
A completely unreferenced article on baronetcies. See also WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSUSEFUL FOARP (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You say you love; but with a voice

You say you love; but with a voice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

This page has been unsourced since December 2008 and it has not had any notable improvements in the intervening 13 years. I had difficulty trying to finding sources to support to the claim in the article that it is Keats' first "believable love poem". This seems to fails GNG (and I cannot seem to find a relevant SNG to compare against.) TartarTorte 13:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete I feel a bit guilty deleting a Keats poem, but if there is nothing here to note its significance... no RS for it, the article is sort of bare. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Beeni

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

No reliable, secondary sources covering this subject in detail have been provided, and a search for scholarly sources on the subject turns up nothing. The article, as it stands, falls into the category of WP:JUNK, neither defining the sport it professes to be about, how it might be different from other forms of wrestling, where the name comes from, or anything of that ilk. The only sources are highly specific news reports of a supposed world champion-defining match in the North of England that equally do not describe the sport in any great detail. This is not great from a WP:NOTNEWS perspective, and, arguably, the actual discussion of the support in these sources is also quite trivial, as they are focused on the matches and the wrestlers more than the sport itself. Only the Manchester Evening New link appears to have more than a few lines on the sport itself. Upon writing this, there was also no inline citation whatsoever supporting any of the claims. Even if this a fringe sport, one would would expect some slightly better sourcing that this to support it; for the moment, it is not convincingly notable from the perspective of Gpedia's standards. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This sport isn't an international one as described in the article. Rather, it is a traditional form of arm wrestling played by some Kashmiri tribes, and the Pakistani diaspora in England. The game is mentioned in the following journal: https://www.academia.edu/36775183/THE_INTERNATIONAL_JOURNAL_OF_HUMANITIES_and_SOCIAL_STUDIES_Socio_Economic_and_Educational_Status_of_Tribal_Gujjar_and_Bakarwal_of_Jammu_and_Kashmir_An_Overview The article can be improved by adding relevant citations and content. Toofllab (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Another Paradise


Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also



England

A1 x J1

A1 x J1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Doing a Google search yields very limited coverage and the sources in the article currently are just from official charts, no independent coverage. Andise1 (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. An act with a number 2 hit in the main chart of an important music market, and a featured appearance on a further top 5 hit, is overwhelmingly likely to be notable. That they have not been Elgarised by the post-Blair/Cameron "new establishment" does not mean we should not cover them just as much as we cover Elgarised rock. For a significant audience, they are very notable indeed, and we cannot discount and dismiss that audience. RobinCarmody (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Week delete per nom, this seems to be WP:TOOSOON. -Xclusivzik (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Two charting singles, one of which hit #2 and charted in four countries, and a platinum certification. Easily passes WP:NMUSIC. Mlb96 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Leonard G. G. Ramsey

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

The one source here is a primary source, and is a public death database. I am not even sure if it has enough information to indicate the linked death is for the same person. My search was able to come up with a few mentions in sources to the works he published, but no reviews, no true coverage of him in a biographical sense, and so few mentions of his work deeply embedded in notes in long books, that there is little prospect. His name does appear in [5], but in a list where they are literally just listing names, they are not even listing dates. These are evidently huge, multi-page sections by nationality and beyond listing the names they say nothing of what these people wrote. It is a database, but one of the most useless databases I have ever seen, since other than the fact that the people included are in some sense "writers" and if you scroll through enough pages you will find the nationality listing, it tells you nothing. It also does not appear to be a reliable source. I see nothing substantial to show notability. Being editor of a publication that is not notable or impactful is not a pass on notability grounds. and being a published writer, or in some ways more a compiler of huge lists of things, in and of itself is not enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - Not even a claim of notability in the article, technically this could be speedied as an A7. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • keep as he has an entry in UK Who's Who https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U168363 Piecesofuk (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • *Keep. We have usually accepted the English Who's Who for purposes of notability . And he was editor of very important magazine.The Connoisseur (magazine), unaccountably not linked in the article. (until Idid it a minute or two ago( The article can probably be expanded. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be very helpful if someone included a the Whos Who article as a reference. For what it is worth the link above when I click on it just tells me I do not have access.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    I've added the UK Who's Who reference, I'm sure Who's Who used to be available for free from the Gpedia Library, looks like it's by application only at the moment, if you're in the UK your local library may offer free access. Also I've found that he is generally known as "L. G. G. Ramsey" when searching online. Piecesofuk (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Eugene Goodman (disambiguation)

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

PrairieKid created this in February after moving Eugene Goodman to Eugene Goodman (businessman) around when Eugene Goodman (police officer) received the Congressional Gold Medal. At the time, the two Goodmans were getting roughly equal pageviews. A year later, it's 2,000:1 in the police officer's favor, and 100% of clicks were going his way from the DAB, so I've BOLDly moved his article to be the primary landing page. That leaves this DAB as a ONEOTHER (or, one-and-a-half other, with a "see also" to Gene Goodman). I've added hatnotes to both of those from the police officer's article, which I think renders this DAB superfluous. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Joey Waterhouse

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

Technically passes WP:NFOOTY by virtue of a two-minute appearance in a cup game, but no significant coverage to satisfy the GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Where is this alleged GNG coverage please? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Dalia Gebrial

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

I can't find any substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Cited sources are either written by the subject, primary, not independent or trivial mentions. WP:BIO is therefore definitely not met. WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF are harder to assess, but with an h-index of 8, appear to be unlikely to be met. SmartSE (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive explanation.--Google Search 19:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Krishna Dharma

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. No major awards or achievement. He has written a few translations of Indian mythology books, but none of them seem to be notable. There are a few book reviews, other sources are self published, dependent and connected with ISKCON. In previous AfD, it was claimed that his books have been translated to other languages. First those are translations of the original Indian work. Secondly those translations serve as propaganda material for ISKCON, which funds their printing. It cannot be taken as a sign of notability. Venkat TL (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to meet the guidelines for notability: His work has been cited in academic texts ([6] , [7], [8], [9]) and journals ([10]), and his Mahabharata, at least, seems to have been reviewed in a number of publications other than the Guardian link in the article (India Today, the Quest, etc.). Hardly seems like the stuff of "propaganda" to me. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep He is best known as the author of popular literary adaptations of ancient Indian epics. --E.Imanoff Snatch 20:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    Says who? All translators of Indian epics are not notable. No evidence his work is popular. Venkat TL (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Michael Mortimer Wheeler

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

no apparent evidence of notability; routine career; none would be expected DGG ( talk ) 11:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A/c our article, in 2000 there were 1072 QCs; in 2017 about 1700 [
  • Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. A full obituary in a major national newspaper is clearly enough to establish notability and has always been held to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - I know there is a slew of Keep votes here, but personally, I don't see it. Yes, he has some obits (and there is precedent there), but as far as I can see...as per DGG he was just a barrister and he served in ww2 - neither of those two things establish notability by themselves. There's no detail of what notable things he achieved. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I can only suppose that there is some us/uk difference here--there may be some reticence in writing down something specific about a barrister. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree, there is certainly no inherent notability for being a barrister - every barrister doesn't get their own wikipedia. And there doesn't seem to be any information that indicates why this person, as a barrister, is notable - eg, what notable things did they do for the legal profession. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Note that he was a QC, not just a run-of-the-mill junior barrister. QCs are generally considered to be pretty notable people and do often get obits in national newspapers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
A/c our article, in 2000 there were 1072 QCs; in 2017, about 1700 [11] in the UK,not counting canda , austraiia, etc. ` DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
According to the obituaries he was more than just a barrister, eg The Times: "It was not normal for barristers of his specialisation to become High Court Judges, but, from 1972 to 1989, he sat as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Chancery Division." Piecesofuk (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Catherine P. Saxton

Catherine P. Saxton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Non-notable publicist. Sources present do not establish notability. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing else. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - Saxton is certainly widely quoted with statements along the lines of :...says Catherine Saxton, so-and-so's publicist". At the same time she appears multiple times in the 2021 book Gatecrashers (Ben Widdicombe), the New York Times quoted her in conversations about social climbers (2006), Nydia Neubauer (2002), and rent-controlled apartments (1992). There was also broader coverage about her work with the New York Pops [12]. That being said, the previous version of the page was largely copied from imdb, and I have removed that text. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I have dug deeping into the *Gatecrashers* book. She is covered on the following pages in the book: 144, 166, 171-174,226, 236-237. More details are in the page DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - There is good RS here, I am just concerned she is only mentioned peripherally in some of it, and there isn't much solid commentary on her establishing her notability. Close but not quite. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Edgware Walker

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

I've done some Googling and see no reliable sources, just oblique mentions, chatty mentions or referring to the comedian's video. Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 06:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment someone contacted me to point out this piece from a local paper. Doesn't seem to meet our bar for establishing notability, but wanted reviewers to see it. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 11:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Please do not delete this article "Edgware Walker". I live in Edgware and have for years, I remember seeing this gentleman, in and around Edgware, many, many times. He was a well known character in Edgware, don't take away any reference to the poor soul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.47.241 (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks. Please see WP:BIO. To establish notability, as opposed to 'someone recognisable on the streets of a locality', we need multiple, non-trivial references in reliable source. If you (or anyone else) could provide one or two, the article will not be deleted. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 22:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Newcastle United Independent Supporters Association

Newcastle United Independent Supporters Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

No evidence of notability. Article fails WP:GNG. We can’t have articles on all supporters groups in the world, and this one does not seem more notable than others. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

High House Gardens, Congham

High House Gardens, Congham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Firstly , Notability. The only source of any solidity is Pevsner; one line on the house, nothing on the garden. Secondly, this is a lump of the kind of promotional flannel that the owners of 'hospitality venues' create so that gullible would-be clients are bamboozled by the fact that there is a Gpedia article. TheLongTone (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

And thirdly the article has nothing about the garden in it; it consisted of a lot of guff (to use the technical term) about the rich people who lived there. I've removed it, of courseTheLongTone (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
And fourthly the editor is (I assume) being paid to create this dreck. I've AfD'd (sucessfully) od of their cratios, & will be looving at the rest.TheLongTone (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    Comment, I think we should assume good faith towards Maypm, who created this article. If you look at their editing pattern, yes, they have created articles about two historical properties in Norfolk that have become wedding venues, but they have also created or worked on a variety of other articles, mostly about historical buildings. It is extremely common for such buildings to be used as wedding venues. Practically every house in Norfolk more than 100 years old and equipped with a garden big enough for a marquee is available to hire for your wedding if you want! If Maypm just happens to live in Norfolk and like writing about his/her local historical houses, they're doomed to writing about wedding venues, without this meaning that they are being WP:PAID. TheLongTone, if you think Maypm is being paid, the place to deal with it is probably an administrators' noticeboard, not AfD, but I don't think it'll hold much traction. Some of their other articles, for example Reymerston Hall, Norfolk are quite well balanced and historically informative. In general, the current commercial use of a property shouldn't count against its notability. Having said all that (and sorry about the rant!) there appears to be nothing useful to say about High House Gardens, Congham, so delete is reasonable. Elemimele (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I do assume good faith, but having looked at a couple of the editors other contribution I remain very doubtful. I cannot imagine why anybody should create an article ostensibly about a garden which in fact consists entirely of eyewateringly dull biographical details of the now demolished house's owners.TheLongTone (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
and I (sort of) apologise for removing all the references bar one; not intentional, but the baby went with the bathwater.TheLongTone (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Mmm, been doing some thinking. Looking at the original article, before you trimmed it, TheLongTone, you are quite correct that it was about the house, not so much the garden. My personal guess is that the article's creator was either driving past, or attended a function at the garden, and is the sort of person who finds local history fascinating, so they got to work. There are two ways to handle this; one would be to restore the information about the house and its history, and rename (move) the article to Congham High House. But to do this, we'd have to be certain that the house and its history are notable, and that the article isn't original research. My feeling is that the house would be only borderline, and that the article was supported more by primary sources than secondary, so it does stray into the territory of writing that should be published as local history, not as encyclopaedia content. So I do still think (sadly) that delete might be the better option. I am sorry I got so grumpy yesterday! Elemimele (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

As a dedicated curmudgeon I noticed no grumpiness. My doubts about the author of these articles remains. Most of the content is dull beyond belief.TheLongTone (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Others


Northern Ireland

Brocagh Emmetts GAC

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

Deleted through AfD a few years ago, so not eligible for prod. Recently recreated without a single ref from an independent reliable source. Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Denis Alexander, 6th Earl of Caledon

Denis Alexander, 6th Earl of Caledon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

The subject of this article does not conform to Gpedia notability standards. The article simply gives his name and lists his relatives, many of whom appear un-notable too. Emmentalist (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Always a bit unsure about these peerage articles. Basically it's a rich guy with a title they inherit, nothing notable beyond that. They are either all eligible as a class of people, or aren't. This fellow seems non-notable, the article just confirms he existed. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Yeah, basically. They are either all eligible as a class of people, or aren't. In that case per Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Somerset, 6th Baron Raglan: There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete; merge content with Earl of Caledon where Denis Alexander is already mentioned. There exists a Gpedia page for each title; this is consistent with the principle that titles are a category or class which is of itself notable. It is not consistent or logical to have a separate Gpedia article about an individual who has a title and is otherwise not notable since the title, and the reference to each person who has held it, is already the subject of an extant article. Separate articles should only apply where the individual, such as the First Duke of Wellington, is notable for reasons other than the title. This principle should be applied in all other cases where the holder of a title is otherwise not notable. BrightonDave (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Note that most hereditary peers until 1999 qualified for articles per WP:POLITICIAN as members of the House of Lords. This doesn't apply to Caledon, however, as he was an Irish peer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Hawkeye7. There's plenty of coverage of him, even if not especially comprehensive. Entry in Who's Who. Enough to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete @Hawkeye7's point seems to have been fully addressed by @BrightonDave. Denis Alexander, The 6th Earl of Caledon, is included in the Earl of Caledon page. In addition, the argument that an individual is notable because they are in the UK's Who's Who is essentially circular because the Who's Who has an editorial policy of including all title holders. Gpedia must set its own rules. I completely respect arguments to the contrary, and those who are taking the time to make them, but to me it seems perverse for each Earl mentioned at the Earl of Caledon page, and who can have as much biographical material there as anyone wishes consistent with Gpedia policies, should also have a separate article regardless of whether or not they are notable (the Who's Who issue notwithstanding). I agree that if this is actioned it will require the articles of many unknown aristocrats (including, it seems, most of the Earls of Caledon) to have their second, or individual, articles merged with the article for the relevant title. The implications of our decision are therefore fairly considerable. I'm going to ask at TeaHouse if anyone there fancies chipping in. We seem quite evenly balanced at the moment, and in view of the consequences it might be good to have an admin give a point of view? Best regards to all, Emmentalist (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • The author of the "!vote" immediately above is the nominator. -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Yes, that's quite right @hoary Perhaps I confused things there. Apols if so, and thanks. Emmentalist (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
      Not all the Earls of Caledon are lesser light; Du Pre Alexander, 2nd Earl of Caledon was an important figure, with a biography in the ODNB. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Thanks, @Hawkeye7, I agree that the 2nd Earl is notable in his own right and his own article is quite right on that basis.Emmentalist (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. He was an earl, so I imagine that he would have been eligible to participate in the House of Lords; but many Lords didn't and there's no hint in the article that he did. He would have had the right to wear unusual headgear. And he procreated. He was promoted to lieutenant colonel, but there's no indication of that there's anything notable about what he did on his way to this rank. So he seems utterly un-notable (in the normal sense of the word). The nomination: "The article simply gives his name and lists his relatives, all of whom appear un-notable too." As the article is ostensibly about him, I don't see why it would make any difference if his relatives were notable. Of course what matters is Gpedia-notability; and plenty of non-notable people (reality TV show participants, etc) are Gpedia-notable because there's so much talk about them in "reliable sources". But for this fellow, the references all seem very trivial. -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    As noted above, Earl of Caledon is in the Peerage of Ireland, which did not confer an automatic right to sit in the House of Lords. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    Ah, sorry, I missed that. Written above together with it: "most hereditary peers until 1999 qualified for articles per WP:POLITICIAN as members of the House of Lords". In WP:POLITICIAN, I read that article-eligibility "also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them"; I'm not sure that this also applies to people eligible for political office but who rarely if ever made use of that eligibility. But this is beside the point here, as the man's peerage was Irish. -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Customarily for many years now we have included all British/Irish peers, and that weight of custom would probably need a properly advertised RfC to overturn it. The Who's Who entry appears sufficient for verification, I think the Gazette would cover his accession (not sure for Irish peers, tbh) and it would be extremely unlikely were his life not to be covered by local newspapers, at the very least. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete – Some dude who inherited land and a title, married a game show panelist, ostensibly did nothing notable in his role as an officer, and that's basically it. This article may as well belong in a genealogy database. The entry in Who Was Who should mean next to nothing; it's a publication that does so little research on its own tens of thousands of subjects that it compiles its entries by sending questionnaires to the people it writes about and letting them fill it out of their own accord with seemingly little or no fact-checking. While I don't have access to Montgomery-Massingberd & Skyes (1999), it's hard to imagine this subject received more than a couple-sentence blurb even in such a highly specific publication. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a super discussion and thanks so much to everyone who has participated so far. Perhaps a clarifying point here? It is agreed that the UK aristocracy is notable and that each title qualifies for a Gpedia article, including biographical detail on each historical title holder. It's also easy to understand why many people could find such articles interesting and useful. The question at hand is whether those otherwise un-notable figures mentioned there should also have a second article dedicated to them. Again, it is easy to understand why, say, the First Duke of Wellington (i.e. the famous one) or perhaps, as mentioned by @espressoaddict the Second Earl of Caledon, might have such a huge biographical entry that it would distort the page for the title and a second article would be appropriate. But that would seem (imho) to rest on normal standards of notability other than simply being included in the article about the title.Emmentalist (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or, failing that, merge and redirect to Earl of Caledon. (As noted, and while "peerage titles" are often considered notable, every single holder of such title is not automatically considered notable.) There is nothing to indicate that ANYBIO, SIGCOV, or related guidelines are met here. (As noted, other than being the holder of a title [and being listed in a "Whos Who" because of that], there is nothing else here [in the text or the refs] to establish independent notability.) Inheriting land, being in the military and having own families/chlidren? How does this confer notability? Guliolopez (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not a regular Gpedia editor but I do enjoy reading about history and nobility on Gpedia and sometimes I post a comment if it might be useful. Can I suggest that a good way of seeing this subject is to look at the EarlofCaldon article and particularly at the 'lines of succession' section. There you will see that the 6th Earl (Denis Alexander) is listed. Below him is listed his uncle, Harold Alexander. There are big two differences, though, and they're both interesting and relevant here. First, Harold was not an heir (his brother, Denis' father, was the heir) and so would never normally have been an Earl (and presumably would not have a second page in normal circumstances). But second, Harold became a Field Marshal and Governor of Canada and actually an Earl in his own right. This seems to serve perfectly the point that some nobles' lives are honourable but not notable and so their Gpedia entry seems best to stop there - I suggest Denis Alexander is such a case. Whereas some nobles' lives are indeed notable and should have a full Gpedia page dedicated to them like any other highly notable person. Harold seems the perfect example of the latter. I hope this is helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:C12D:C200:CCE1:7C3A:3AD4:30B2 (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. Aside from the Who's Who entry, the subject is also mentioned in this 1 book, where he is described as an "endearingly eccentric bachelor". Surely these sources together are enough to establish notability. Ficaia (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Would you be able to describe what else is said in the book for those who don't have access to it? That was a rhetorical question, by the way, because you seemed to misinterpret the Gpedia excerpt you copied this information from; Alexander's uncle was described as an "endearingly eccentric bachelor". I'm not sure you even read the entire article before voting, given it's clearly stated that Alexander married three times and was married to Marie Allen from 1964 onward, i.e. he couldn't have been a "bachelor". Other editors and I have noted above that the Who's Who entry is almost certainly unreliable due to poor fact-checking and was almost certainly only created not because of anything notable the subject actually did but because of the title they inherited. Those two sources together definitely are not enough to establish notability unless the Great Houses source is quite extensive – say, spanning several pages at least. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC, I don't accept that all nobility are automatically notable. Mztourist (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi, Wikipedians. I hope this is helpful to this excellent discussion. "Who's Who" has been cited by the minority so far who would prefer to Keep. This type of publication, including the UK version, is not agreed as a reliable source WP:RSN as they are self-reporting (i.e. the subject literally writes the article) and not fact checked. WP:GNG is unambiguous that the subject must not be the source of the information:

"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it".

On a lighter note, @TheTechnician27 made me smile: Yes, it is always best to read the article and look at the points made in this discussion before deciding what should happen. That way, you will not describe someone as a confirmed bachelor when they were married with children. As a side note, the notion of the 'endearingly eccentric bachelor' in an old publication may very possibly be a less-than-subtle coded reference which Wikipedian's may wish to think about before citing? All the best to everyone participating, and thanks very much. Emmentalist (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep.Plenty of RS, Who's Who entry, and generally we cover this level of peerage. Also there are some Delete votes who infer by their comments, that they simply don't seem to like the concept of a peer!.. Voting against something because of your personal viewpoint of a concept is completely irrelevant.Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @deathlibrarian. Thanks for your thoughts, but it is best to assume good faith and to be respectful of other editors/contributors. It's also advisable - said with genuine great respect - to read the other contributions before passing your own comments because otherwise you risk repeating the same points other have and missing all the arguments. For your information, it has been argued by many above, including the people you mention in the pejorative, that a number of policies imply (not infer) the requirement to delete/merge the Denis Alexander article. These include WP:Basic, WP:GNG, WP:Notability and that Who's Who is not agreed as a reliable source WP:RSN. There are a number of other policies which likely apply and in the end the closing administrator will give weight to all of these when adjudicating. Finally, the proposal is not to 'not cover' the peerage, but to delete the article while merging the relevant information at the Earl of Caledon article. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Emmentalist for your measured and very polite response. I did in fact ignore the comments about Who's Who, because as far as I am concerned, it is RS. If you note the WP:RSN it doesn't disallow it, it says editors are divided on whether it is an RS. However, some editors here are saying it isn't, I would disagree. Our own Gpedia entry clearly indicates that Who's Who is for notable people - "Inclusion in Who's Who, unlike many other similar publications, has never involved any payment by or to the subject, or even any obligation to buy a copy. Inclusion has always been by perceived prominence in public life or professional achievement"There is another different publication, called the "Maquis Who's Who". I believe that is not regarded as RS for good reasons, however it is completely separate publication.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Per Guliolopez - Delete. Or, failing that, merge and redirect to Earl of Caledon. No RS, 'Who's Who' does not pass RS and is often merely a list of individuals. Unless this individual had a seat in the Lords then he fails N. --Donniediamond (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I will note a lot of people have been talking about Who's Who UK as a reliable source. If you check the actual RS noticeboard, list of sources, WP:RSN it does not rule out the use of UK Who's Who. The RS noticeboard discussions rule out another publication, "Maquis Who's Who" - a different US(?) publication which accepts payment for entries. There is a discussion here on the RS noticeboard about that publication which accepts payment for entry. UK and Australian "Who's Who" do not accept payments. The Gpedia Entry for UK Who's Who indicates that the publication "lists people who influence British life, according to its editors". Certainly Australian Who's Who is well regarded in my country, only notable people are listed in it. People can submit/update their own details once they have gained an entry (and this is a valuable thing as it can assist with keeping information up to date), but you can't simply submit your own bio and you are automatically added, or pay for it to go in...the publication chooses who goes in. As he is listed in Who's Who, my keep vote remains. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:RSP is simply "a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Gpedia are frequently discussed". I'm aware that A&C Black's Who's Who and Marquis' are different entities. From the search results of the reliable sources noticeboard (where RSP sources its entries from), a couple of the first few results stand out. I won't ping these editors for fear of WP:CANVASSing and improperly influencing the discussion, but in one, an editor of around my experience calls "the existence of an entry in the well established British Who's Who a helpful but insufficient condition to establish notability". In another, an administrator does call WW "certainly a reliable source" but goes on to state: "it shouldn't be used as conclusive proof of notability." The most substantial discussion of "Debretts, Whos Who etc" I can find dates back to 2007, but I would keep in mind when reading it that editors were already calling into question the publications' independence and the amount of notabillity it conferred all the way back then, when notability standards were treated far more laxly. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • In regard to these comments, I would be concerned that they are influenced or referring to the dodgier (Maquis etc) Who's Who, particularly if they are challenging its independence. The Gpedia entries for UK Who's Who substantiates it as a selective biographical work, and doesn't raise any issues about it's independence. Certainly, I would ask editors that have some confirmation of the illegitimacy of Australian and UK Who's Who that they should update the Gpedia page for the publication, with the Reliable Source that confirms their concerns. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • To clarify, both of these opinions are expressly referring to "Who's Who (UK)", which is listed in the header of the discussion I'm referencing. The third one, which I've since removed because it was potentially ambiguous, may have been referencing Who's Whos in general. That being said, the fact that Who's Whos are published based on autobiographical information sent in by the subjects means it's clearly not independent in the same way that interviews generally aren't considered independent. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand that part of the logic of people providing their own bio entry information is that it allows for the entry person to keep it up to date, so that it is in fact accurate. I think they are checked to a degree (?).... but I'm certainly not aware of their being issues with the Who's Who entries being incorrect due to people submitting incorrect information. My point is, Who's Who in Australia and the UK is generally well regarded, and if people have some sort of reliable source that says otherwise (apart from their personal opinions), they should provide it so the publication wiki entry can be changed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It would be fair to say, I think, that the status of the UK's Who's Who is ambiguous, eminently debatable and indeed debated across Gpedia (including here). But let's not allow this discussion to be all about Who's Who. It seems clear that Who's Who entries are sometimes used as supplementary sources when there are other reasons for considering the subject of an article to be notable. As @TheTechnician27 quotes another editor, considering Who's Who entries helpful but not of themselves sufficient for notability seems the best policy. Denis Alexander has no other claim to notability. Emmentalist (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Emmentalist I think at this point, as we both have opposing views on the status of UK and Australian who's who, I think it just best that we agree to dissagree; I don't see that changing one way or the other. Thanks for the discussion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge with Earl of Caledon, because honestly, he's already mentioned and frankly, Denis Alexander was a pretty unimportant guy with an inherited title, no money, who married a game show panelist (as stated above) and had no real historical role. Also, as stated before (but in a longer and angrier way) UK Who's Who really isn't a good source. Vdbhi (talk) 7:05 22 January 2022 — Preceding undated comment added 00:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Others

Scotland

Maxwell Burns

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

Non notable member of a notable family: he died when he was less than 3 years old, and as his his father was dead by the time he was born, it isn't as if he was the inspiration for notable works either. Probably some of the other articles about family members need to be looked at as well (e.g. Elizabeth Riddell Burns). Suggestions for the best redirect target are welcome. Fram (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Not even remotely close to being notable. Notability is not inherited, and the less than 3 year old son of a writer who was born after his writer father died is in no way going to make any passing of notability at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom and failure to meet WP:GNG due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV focusing in depth on the life of Maxwell Burns. Entries in genealogical databases don't cut it. Nor do the father's letters about the impending birth. Cbl62 (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Shame on you :-) We are approaching Burns Night and you are objecting to research on Scotland's most famous person! The article brings together in one place all the admittedly scant details and links regarding a child whose impending birth was of such concern that a dying man wrote his last ever letter regarding it. Gpedia policies are surely more flexible than you imply? Rosser Gruffydd
  • Keep(here or with full current entry retained in the redirect entry). Certainly don't delete or submerge in another entry (say a portmanteau entry on Burns's children) till there is more discussion of how people will find the William Maxwell Burns entry, and whether the research gathered in the current entry will remain fully available. If not noteable in himself, he is noteworthy in the sense that people using wikipedia for Burns topics want to be able easily to locate accurate information on any of Burns's children, and this entry assembles perhaps the fullest body of information and references anywhere (at least on the web). There is an issue for Gpedia in having independent entries for people of this kind, where we know people want to find good information easily, not through multiple redirects; one test of notabilty or the viability of separate entries might be whether they rated an entry in the print Burns Encyclopaedias over the years. Patrick Scott, author, Robert Burns: A Documentary Volume (2018), etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greigscott (talkcontribs) 21:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Seeing that he gets one line in the Burns encyclopedia[13], that's hardly an argument to keep this. If even highly, highly specialised encyclopedias don't give much attention to the subject, then it is not the place of Gpedia to go further. Most of the article is fluff, a lot of text to hide that there is very little to say about Maxwell Burns: highly surprising for someone who died before they were three years old of course. It's hard to see why "people using Gpedia for Bruns topics" would want to know anything beyond what the Burns Encyclopedia has to say. Similarly, for other famous persons, we don't reproduce every scrap of info that can be found in e.g. a book-length biography, but we summarize the important points. And Maxwell Burns is not an important point in the life and career of Robert Burns, he is a footnote, worth a mention, not an article. Fram (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
      • When you are in a hole stop digging. You are now adding your personal opinion as insults to a lack of appreciation of a Scottish icon. I take it that you wouldn't mind the Scottish press reading your considered opinion? Take a day off to think your comments through as I find that helps. Rosser Gruffydd 10:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I wasn't aware that Maxwell Burns was a Scottish icon, nor that I said anything wrong about Robert Burns? Feel free to inform the Scottish press about this AfD though, I would be thoroughly amazed if any of them would care one bit about this, or see anything insulting about Robert Burns in it. You seem to be overreacting a bit here. Fram (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment For the record I do not think we should have any article on anyone who died before age 5, period, nor do I think we should create articles on people who are not yet 5. The one exception might be if someone that age actually is the monarch of somewhere. There may be a few other exceptions, but I have opposed articles with actual secondary source coverage focused on people this young. Definitely finding a mention in a personal letter of a child about to be born by anyone does not show that person is notable. Notability is not inherited. No matter how notable someone is, that does not directly make anyone related to them notable. It may indirectly work, if it leads to reliable source secondary coverage of these other people that is significant in sources than are independent of the subject, but it does not directly lead to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The Beltanes

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

Not notable. Lots of OR and crappy, unverifiable sources. A source that documents a comedian played at a club does not document that the band played at that club. That's the kind of crap we have here. It was vandalism (removed here) at the Eva Cassidy article that alerted me to this article. -- Valjean (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Patrick McGuire (solicitor)

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

Non notable lawyer. None of the references are about the subject; they're mainly pointers to cases on which he worked and in which, for the most part, the subject is incidental or entirely missing. He has not held a position of any importance or notability. He does not inherit notability from the cases he's worked on, even were any of them more than the fairly routine stuff one would expect to see a personal injury lawyer engage in.

Previous versions of this paid COI fluff-article found only a couple of (routine PR) stories about the subject. Fails to satisfy WP:GNG. Gpedia is not for self-promotion. Tagishsimon (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
As an editor with a COI, I have declared clearly my association with Patrick McGuire and worked in my Sandbox to create a neutral article about this notable Scottish solicitor. The current page does not represent his work well and is not up to date. The sources are indeed not comprehensive. I had drafted a more thorough and well-sourced page in my Sandbox using many reliable sources such as BBC News, Glasgow Times, The Herald Scotland and The Scotsman. I made an edit request asking for approval of the updated content (detailed on the Patrick McGuire Talk page), but my Sandbox page has been deleted in its entirity. This content described how Patrick has campaigned for and achieved legal change in Scotland, how the cases he is currently working on will set legal precedents whether he wins or loses and how he has worked on some of the most high-profile and highly-reported cases in Scotland's recent legal history. Can you advise as to how I can prove Patrick's notability when the suggestions for improvements I make are deleted very speedily without, or so it seems, full review by a number of editors.
Heartmusic678 recently added some requested updates to the Notable Cases section of the current page, so they therefore must feel the additions I am suggesting helped the page. I would be happy to discuss the page further and re post my proposed changes, and I am open to all advice and guidance. Kind regards ShimsCabot (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShimsCabot (talkcontribs)
  • Delete I had updated links to multiple references that are used in the article over recent days, so that it would be easier for any editors to assess the published material. The articles that I have seen are all reporting on cases where McGuire's firm were at work. In these articles there are quotes attributed to McGuire. There are multiple examples of his firm pursuing damages on behalf of their clients, but I don't see any references that indicate any "campaigning" beyond this. The paid editing aspects here are unfortunate. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. My initial instinct was to delete, based on the fact none of the 18 references provided mention the subject's name. But a quick web search reveals plenty of reliable, third-party coverage. I see three sources which I feel are enough to meet GNG. Article needs some improvement, but I think deletion in this instance is a little hasty. Please note, my initial edit summary said delete, but I did indeed mean keep.[1][2][3]> MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    Could you clarify, @MarchOfTheGreyhounds:. You say 'plenty', but cite only two, one of which - lawyer-of-the-month - is parochial and routine. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    Hi, Maybe I can provide some more sources. All of the following supported the redrafted content I had provided in my Sandbox page. I can provide more if necessary: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] ShimsCabot (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    Okay, first off let me apologize for sloppy, tired editing last night, including citing the same source twice. Let me reconsider. What do you think of this source, where McGuire's actions are the focus of the article?
    The bulk of sources provided here by ShimsCabot won't quite cut it, as the subject is only quoted or mentioned in these articles, he isn't their focus. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    I would like to add another source, on a current subject. Patrick campaigned on behalf of COVID victims and their families calling for a full Scottish Public Inquiry into how the pandemic was handled in Scotland (initially, the Government had said there would not be an inquiry). The article details McGuire's open letter to Deputy First Minister, John Swinney in relation to the scope of the Inquiry and whether it will have the necessary powers to see justice done. ShimsCabot (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I also have other sources, not from news outlets, which show Patrick's involvement in Scottish and UK Parliament Justice and Working Committees and drafting/advising on Members' Bills. While they are not 'about' Patrick McGuire, they prove the types of notable work he engages in and how he has been commended for this work. I hope this helps. [13][14][15][16][17]ShimsCabot (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.heraldscotland.com/business_hq/15661677.thompsons-partner-mcguire-job-much-just-law/
  2. ^ https://www.heraldscotland.com/business_hq/15661677.thompsons-partner-mcguire-job-much-just-law/
  3. ^ https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/lawyer-of-the-month-patrick-mcguire
  4. ^ https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/1billion-covid-compo-bill-facing-23976591
  5. ^ https://www.thenational.scot/politics/14890421.top-lawyer-blasts-holyrood-ruling-over-tory-union-bill/
  6. ^ https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/legal-action-over-sexual-abuse-claims-taken-against-scottish-football-association
  7. ^ https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15777844.lawyer-slams-nhs-scotland-predicts-mesh-scandal-will-costly-thalidomide-pay-outs/
  8. ^ https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/penrose-inquiry-mcguire-calls-for-scotland-to-follow-roi-example-in-compensating-victims
  9. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-20114904
  10. ^ https://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/96909/campaigners-say-vale-of-leven-c-diff-inquiry-must-result-in-national-action/
  11. ^ https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13048103.implants-gagging-order-claim/
  12. ^ https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13101890.ashes-inquiry-demand/
  13. ^ https://www.parlamaid-alba.scot/api/sitecore/CustomMedia/OfficialReport?meetingId=12879
  14. ^ https://www.parliament.scot/api/sitecore/CustomMedia/OfficialReport?meetingId=6727
  15. ^ https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmscotaf/uc1344-vi/uc134401.htm
  16. ^ https://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2021-01-21.29.0
  17. ^ https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/what-was-said-in-parliament/meeting-of-parliament-21-01-2021?meeting=13068&iob=118277

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Others


Wales

Cymdeithas Edward Llwyd

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

This is a Non-notable orginization. It doesn't appear to meet wikipedia's notability guidelines and should be deleted--Steamboat2020 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Kameelion

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

Very unclear where notability lies. This appears to rely on WP:BAND which also requires that WP:CHART is satisfied. The only valid mention is an assertion about a chart position of 67 in the Belgium charts. There is no ref that substantiates that and WP:BEFORE does not reveal any such evidence. All the rest are trivial, social media mentions and passing mentions and associations with better know bands and people. Even the local north Wales sources are very weak. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - See the discussions at the earlier AfDs. Under his stage name he was already deleted (at least) twice, he was deleted once under a misspelled version of his birth name, and he was speedy deleted at least 6 times under various other versions of his birth name. Those were all more than ten years ago, and he apparently has a few more achievements since then, but I suspect a dogged effort to use Gpedia for promotional purposes no matter how many decades go by. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt all imaginable variations of his name. Per my comment above, there are a whole bunch of previous AfDs for this person in which the logic advanced by all "delete" voters still stands. Mr. Kameelion knows how to promote himself on social media but everything to be found is about his own quest for celebrity rather than his few actual achievements. This article is ref-bombed with tangential and indirect social media references to other people and things. For example, Mr. Kameelion once got some social media clicks by saying he was sad about the band Viola Beach (deadly car accident), and that is stated here as some sort of achievement with a source about Viola Beach and not himself. Everything else follows the same pattern. Also, most of this article was written by Ashcroft18 who has done almost nothing else in Gpedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt per Doomsdayer520. If there were a reliable source to prove a song of the subject's charted, maybe this could be kept. What this article has is unproved assertions and even those assertions of notability are at the very bottom end of what we could accept. The fact that this article has been deleted before is proof of a promotional effort, hence the need to salt the title and let the promoters know that the home office in San Francisco has to be bought off to escape AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Others

<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Deletion_sorting%2FUnited_Kingdom">here</a> and attribution parties <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/United_Kingdom&amp;action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="https://www.gpedia.com/terms-of-use.php">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>