Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

Sebastian Payne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability of the individual is questionable, and as I've noted before his article is written like a resume. PlateOfToast (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Probably passes AUTHOR, a few book reviews found [1], [2], [3], but the sourcing used now in the article isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep quite a well known figure, has been a guest on Question Time (TV programme) for example and I think he meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria of being an 'important figure' as his career changes have been reported on independently.[4]. Agree the article reads like a resume though, needs work. Orange sticker (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Clifford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability concerns. The article is about a British professor of geography; no secondary sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (no opinion yet). This Nick Clifford appears to be Nicholas J. Clifford, author of research works involving river bed sediment. He should not be confused with Nicholas R. Clifford, a sinologist who appears to be notable (William R. Kenan Professor at Middlebury College). It doesn't help that I keep finding NRC's books listed as being by NJC. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. There is a weak case to be made for WP:PROF#C1, with a few triple-digit citation counts in Google Scholar. But I can't find any sources that verify even the basic times and dates of his employment, and without that it is difficult to write even an adequate stub that passes WP:V. (To be clear: through affiliations listed on his publications one can place him in certain universities at certain dates, but nothing with a bigger picture of his career.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I do not think that these claims are enough to confer notability. Otherwise, its simply a very unremarkable block of flats, with all that I could find being 'property' listings & the like.TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Crime, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Wcquidditch:, we were too efficient ;-) Reverted my close of this. Star Mississippi 14:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've now deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Tower as a G6 so we stop E/Cing all over the place. @TheLongTone you did nothing wrong. I think Twinkle hiccuped. Star Mississippi 14:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I think it was Twinkle, altho I do have fat fingers.TheLongTone (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Heavily WP:COATRACKing a set of murders/suspicious deaths, but I'm pretty sure the building didn't kill them. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing notable about this building; the article is a WP:COATRACK for WP:RUMORS about certain of its occupants. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Flintoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable cricketer, who hasn't played at first-class/List A/Twenty20 level. Under-19 cricketers are deemed non-notable and most of his coverage seems to come as a result of his famous father, so WP:NOTINHERITED applies. An article can be created once he makes his senior debut. AA (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. AA (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG easily. Do we have an SNG being abused to deny wider community norms here? Where does it say under 19 cricketers are always non notable. This is no ordinary cricketer here but the son of a cricket icon. Easily passes notability standards and his coverage reflects his own efforts and not his Dad’s. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So basically your whole argument is WP:INHERITED. PS: I don't abuse anything on this site. WP:NCRIC says: "...cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level...". AA (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And GNG requires 2 sources and outranks NCRIC Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No response on WP:NOTINHERITED, which this clearly is... AA (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unclear that he passes GNG - County 2nd XI would not generally make GNG, no major honours (per WP:SPORTSPERSON). Of citations, overwhelming majority are framed in terms of his father (WP:NOTINHERITED) - e.g. "Inside Freddie Flintoff's life with his adorable family...", Biggest test for Flintoff's talented sons...", "Freddie Flintoff's son, Rocky,...", "Andrew Flintoff's son makes...". He may well progress beyond county cricket into first class & intl - but he hasn't yet WP:LAGGING. Hemmers (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widespread coverage across the world in the BBC, Sky Sports, The Times, Malaysia Sun, Times of India, News18, The Independent, The Telegraph, Wisden, ESPNCricinfo and the list goes on. Yes the articles often mention his father in the headline or the article themselves but that is going to be the case his entire life unless he manages to totally surpass what his father achieved which is a high bar to set. The articles themselves are about him, not his father, and as such he easily passes the coverage test. Shrug02 20:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A lot of convenient ignoring of WP:NOTINHERITED going on here. If his father was Joe Bloggs, a plumber from Cleethorpes, there wouldn't be any coverage. I might start adding club cricketers with loads of coverage in county newspapers. AA (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We shall never know as his father isn't "Joe Bloggs, a plumber from Cleethorpes". But many of the players selected to play for England under 19s get media coverage despite not having famous fathers and also I would think that whoever broke a record set by Andrew Flintoff would at the very least get coverage in and around the Lancashire area and probably further afield too. But again we will never know as that isn't what happened, it was his son who broke the record. Shrug02 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Vorley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

BLP1E. Football club directors are not inherently notable and by coverage this is a pure BLP1E as the appointment of a porn/glamour performer caused some noise at the time. Beyond that, nothing. Not by her real name or alias Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:ENT, and WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage of her as a former glamour model, pornographic actress, nor film director. She being an English football club director is considered to be WP:ONEEVENT. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to David_Sullivan_(businessman)#Personal_life: where she is mentioned; merge what's necessary. Not opposed to keep, given existing coverage -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 15:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poppy Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

How has this survived the raised expectations around porn performers. The sourcing is well below GNG for a BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a few years ago, a group of users has managed to create a consensus that states that pornographic entertainers are basically not notable for what they do (their awards do not count, the coverage from the industry does not count, etc.). OK. But this actress might meet GNG: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/hull-porn-star-poppy-morgan-2877489 ; https://www.anorak.co.uk/377943/celebrities/hull-mps-want-page-3-banned-but-the-official-brochure-says-poppy-morgan-is-part-of-the-city-culture.html ; https://www.expressandstar.com/news/2006/11/23/porn-star-to-teach-dancers/ as these sources mention that her notability as porn star exists outside WP and outside the industry. At least, that's how I see things. And I consider her notable enough to have a page. If any ATD exists, feel free to redirect. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for proving my point with non reliable sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're welcome. Thank you for providing a link showing these sources are non-reliable according to a clear consensus. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lottie Tomlinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I believe this person fails WP:BIO, only sources I could find are passing mentions related to her more famous brother Louis Tomlinson or promotional tabloid stuff. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, and United Kingdom. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very much a WP:NOTINHERITED case here. Nate • (chatter) 23:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:ENT, and WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage of her as a model nor makeup artist. Also, WP:NINI. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I haven't seen any reliable sources that discuss her career as a model or makeup artist in detail. Maybe this information could be added to her brother's article, but it doesn't seem like enough for a whole separate page on Wikipedia. Waqar💬 18:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I mean the content is not super important stuff like articles about footballers who play a few games in a top league, but there's a *lot* of news coverage about her out there.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypo (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC with no chart activity, discography, or notable label work, while any coverage is only about his death. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 23:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 23:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Coverage of the murder, trial and suspect are what I find. Nothing about the musician while he was alive, other than an article about who he was dating. None of these things contribute to musical notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This article seems more interested in the musician's death than their actual career. There's no mention of chart success, albums, or major label involvement. It might be better placed elsewhere. Waqar💬 17:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Rooney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I believe that the subject fails WP:GNG (another case of WP:TOOEARLY). Let's just take a step back here. Are we being serious? Why is a 14 year old playing in an academy getting a Wikipedia article? There is nothing to suggest this kid will be a professional one day. He's just Wayne Rooney's kid playing for Man United's academy. There is no article about Cristiano Ronaldo Jr., although there is arguably more coverage there. Are we gonna make articles for all football-playing sons of famous footballers? I think we need to really take a step back and think before we make such articles way too early.
Short: I don't think Kai Rooney is notable.
I wouldn't be against either merging this to Wayne Rooney or just draftifying and seeing how the next few years go (with someone upkeeping the draft as time passes). Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this article was created by the same user who created Cristiano Ronaldo Jr — see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristiano Ronaldo Jr as this may be a very similar situation. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Wayne Rooney. In addition to too early and GNG, this is also a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 23:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or redirect to Wayne Rooney - My personal view on articles on minors is that they need to be held to a higher standard than other BLPs, since a Wikipedia article has the potential to irrevocably destroy the subject's private life. Another thing weighing against this is that, even when there were top-level-game appearance criteria in WP:NSPORT, U## leagues (read: leagues specifically for minors) were never considered acceptable. I'm not impressed with the sourcing here, as it seems to be entirely routine stuff only being amplified because of his parents' notoriety. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or redirect to Wayne Rooney—I personally think these types of articles are useless. I also agree with Jéské Couriano above. Anwegmann (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wayne Rooney as we did with previous similar AfD cases, such as Cristiano Ronaldo Jr. History is preserved if Kai Rooney gets media attention as he grows up. If this AfD resulted in redirect, I also would recommend to protect the redirect page to prevent future creation. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 20:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Liverpool F.C. matches in international competitions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is an unnecessary and redundant collection of matches that Liverpool have played in international competition. An article outlining the club's record in Europe already exists, we do not need a list of every single match. Considering also that the reader can learn what happened in those matches from the equivalent season articles AND from seasonal competition pages. I understand having smaller lists for clubs that don't usually play in Europe. For example, Burnley's article contains only a few matches, each of which are especially notable. But like most big English clubs, Liverpool play in Europe almost every single season; making most matches almost as notable as any domestic match. A discussion to delete this list reached no consensus just over two years ago now; but I truely believe redundant lists like this have no place on Wikipedia. Idiosincrático (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, United Kingdom, and England. Idiosincrático (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Due to the club's relevance worldwide, I don't see any problems with a list of international matches existing. This is complementary information and can be easily verified. Svartner (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's also the exact sort of information you used to buy specialty football encyclopedias for. SportingFlyer T·C 14:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Liverpool F.C. in international football, I don't know why we need two separate articles, there is plenty of room in the main one to house the list. You say in your nomination, unnecessary and redundant collection of matches I completely disagree with that, further more, the information in the main article clearly shows it's not redundant and appears to be historically necessary. You haven't even posted any policy based argument in your nomination either. Govvy (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is an absolutely valid WP:SPLIT. Most teams will list all of their European matches on their "X team in Europe" page, so deleting this would basically mean that the most followed clubs wouldn't be able to have information about the matches they've played. I don't support a merge, either - the parent article is almost 100Kb as it stands. SportingFlyer T·C 15:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect per Govvy. GiantSnowman 20:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Cowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NECONOMIST, could not find any coverage to establish notability. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of citations on Google Scholar, enough for WP:PROF#C1, and plenty of reviews of his many books, enough for WP:AUTHOR. I don't think being a full professor at LSE provides automatic notability through WP:PROF#C5 or otherwise, but it is certainly suggestive. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS RePEc lists him in the top 100 economists in the UK, out of some 4600 listed. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep From the citations in G-Scholar and his publishing history (some of his books are in their 3rd or later editions, and I presume they are being used as textbooks) he easily meets WP:ACADEMIC. I am concerned that we do not have sources for the biographical information - however, all of that is found in his CV. Although that is not independent it is at least a source, so I'm going to source the bio paragraph to that document, hoping that something better will come along. Lamona (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I think for basic biographical claims that are not disputed or dubious, a cv is fine as a source, per WP:BLPSELFPUB. It doesn't contribute to notability, but that's not the point of using it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Read (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not seeing much to satisfy WP:BIO: no reviews of his books that I can find, and the Stevie Awards are, according to its own article, won by about 30-40% of its nominees. (I have also nominated the awards for deletion too.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. I'm not impressed by the list of prizes, but that may be because I don't know much about prizes in the business world. The opening sentence says he is a researcher, but one can search in vain for information about what research he has done. Athel cb (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live Art Development Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sources not passing WP:ORGIND and I believe it fails WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As well the 2011 piece by Lyn Gardner of The Guardian which is referenced in the article, searches also find a 2019 piece by the same author. It is partly an interview with the co-founder of LADA, but starts with the writer's overview of the Live Art field and evaluation of LADA's role in it. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The following doesn't contribute to notability here, but I will also note that the present article doesn't mention organisational controversy during 2023 (news item discussing the closure threat and petition). AllyD (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick google scholar search https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22live+art+development+agency%22&btnG= indicates multiple quality sources referencing the organisation and its significance in global and UK live art, including books https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wyJHEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA12&dq=%22live+art+development+agency%22&ots=M7sejwMOu5&sig=66lY7cxWvj0E_0jIdmuCmVU5DN8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22live%20art%20development%20agency%22&f=false and peer review articles dating back to the early 2000s DrawingDays (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote against deletion. While the article has issues, they aren't based on notability. It is clearly a well-cited and long running organisation that is important the UK cultural scene. The article could more clearly lay out the history and challenges of the org, as mentioned above, but this doesn't warrant deletion. genericxz (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominator has invoked WP:NCORP, however from this link [5] we see that the subject is a charity, therefore WP:NONPROFIT applies. It is not necessary for the subject to meet the more stringent guidelines put in place for corporate entities. On this basis - in particular including from the arguments above - there does appear sufficient coverage and citations of the activities of this charity to have a reasonable presumption of notability. ResonantDis_tortion 22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith Data Systems Challenge Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable individual pre-season friendly club match. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, England, Argentina, and Florida. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge – with 1989–90 Arsenal F.C. season#Results as WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It would help to add to the Arsenal season, however that would negate any redirect to Club Atlético Independiente the other team in it. Maybe adding a sponsorship section on Zenith Data Systems with a snippet there? I am still not sure of a redirect. But there are sources, a few on the article, one Guardian source in the external link. Maybe some other sources out there. It could be possible for some basic GNG pass here. Not sure know. Guess I am running at an abstain vote here. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Doesn't merit a redirect. GiantSnowman 19:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Phillips (English cricketer, born 2003) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject person played only 1 List-A and 2 First class match. Does WP:GNG surpasses WP:NCRICK? Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Twinkle1990: - can I just point out NSPORT states that "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline...) - so all NSPORT is saying that people who meet those criteria are considered notable, but not meeting those criteria doesn't automatically make them non-notable. Mdann52 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets GNG. Mdann52 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Doesn't appear on the cricket delsort - tryingto add that again first Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• At worst this is an obvious redirect to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players where his name needs to be added. A note should also be added, as has been done for others. Beyond that I have no particular view here - there are some sources, but not so many. I suspect he is likely to be covered in others as well fwiw Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double Eleven (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I failed to find WP:SIGCOV besides simple announcements, sponsored articles, and primary source interviews. This indicates a failure of WP:ORGTRIV, which excludes "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage". Notability is also not inherited from the games themselves. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Subject to a previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Eleven, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This two are quite good, covering the company's workplace practices. Routine coverage from major RS is also fairly regular but not trivial. I think the recent news surrounding Prison Architect 2 ([6]) may also count as SIGCOV for the studio. OceanHok (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Hi, I’ve nominated this page for deletion as I’m not sure whether they are relevant enough to warrant an entire wikipedia page, politicians who’ve stood for election and lost with less than 2% of the vote don’t generally get Wikipedia pages, especially when they’ve done nothing of much note after the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxisediting (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, not meeting the WP:NPOL criteria only means that there's no inherent notability, not that the subject is not notable. There seems to be enough significant coverage to meet WP:NBIO/WP:GNG. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agree with the above. Fundamentally well covered enough to meet criteria, and little reason to remove well enough sourced information. Flatthew (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Knight is much more than a failed election candidate as is attested to by the numerous citations to other events covered in the article. JezGrove (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Sexuality and gender, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete already been deleted twice under a different title, and the article contains massive WP:BLP concerns. SportingFlyer T·C 21:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A lot of the sources in the article are newer than the previous AfDs, I don't really see the relevance of them. AlexandraAVX (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm just struggling to figure out why she's notable. She clearly doesn't qualify for NPOL, and her other "event" was being fired. Most of the sources are either local papers or self-published. The article reads like WP:NPF needs to be properly applied as well. I'm struggling to see why this should be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 13:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Knight is an important figure in the recent history and controversies of Green Party of England and Wales as the article shows - Knight was not just a failed politician but someone whose behaviour and actions have had ramifications across the political spectrum. Zeno27 (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. For the history of political parties sheltering sexual deviants, if nothing else. Aquila ka Hecate (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a numerical consensus to Keep, they are weak Keeps with no reference to policy or sources. Also most participants have, what I consider, low edit counts so I'm not sure how familiar they are with the norms of AFD discussions. I'd just like to relist and hopefully hear how this subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability and, specifically, what reliable independent sources provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noting that there has been offwiki canvassing related to this AfD: [7], and I suspect that several of the infrequently active accounts voting in this discussion are likely the result of it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are MULTIPLE reliable sources about the subject cited on the page, notability is obviously established, keep. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Gill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iceland, Malta, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Important Ambassador key to negotiations on the completion of the EU’s Single Market. KEEP Cantab12 (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if not notable then this list List of high commissioners of the United Kingdom to Malta is just useless. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree. The list is not useless even if not all office holders on the list are inherently notable. The ones with knighthoods/damehoods would be considered notable, almost by default. Uhooep (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Atlantic Flight 024 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Minor aviation incident, no serious injuries or fatalities, not a hull loss, no impact on aviation regulations or the air transportation system generally; in summary, no WP:LASTING impact. The incident can be adequately discussed in the Heathrow Airport and Airbus A340 articles (perhaps tellingly, there is no mention of the incident in either article as I write this). Carguychris (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Carguychris (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• keep This is a clear incident with wounded people. The Banner talk 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:The Banner, can you expand a bit beyond direct impacts, here injuries sustained plus damage both to the vessel and to Heathrow Airport? gidonb (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Routine airline mechanical incident that resulted in no deaths or serious injuries, plus WP:NOTNEWS. "Wounded people" is certainly not a viable rationale for keeping the article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 23:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:PERSISTENCE, for example in: [1.] A Sociology of Commercial Flight Crew, By Bennett Simon, 2016 (originally 2006), Publisher: Taylor & Francis. [2.] The Virgin Way: Everything I Know About Leadership, By Richard Branson, 2014. Publisher: Penguin. [3.] Virgin Atlantic, By John Balmforth, 2009. Publisher: Midland. Item #1 is even a WP:CASESTUDY. gidonb (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gidonb: Could you give more iformation so we can locate the sources, and if possible, check them out for ourselves? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:LaundryPizza03, of course! Thanks for asking! It's all through Google Books. gidonb (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete There is this: [8], not certain about reliability. Otherwise it's just routine day-by-day reporting, no WP:LASTING. All other information found is either mundane database entries or trivial. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow! Great find! That's already 4 cases of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, this time from 2024! How does such persistent coverage correspond with your conclusion? gidonb (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleFlying is NOT a reliable source - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#SimpleFlying.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By WP:NEXIST, there is absolutely no lack of sources. Exactly why nom did not raise that. Rather, the question is whether the importance of this event was temporary or is WP:LASTING. Hence, also this fourth and very detailed source carries weight, in addition to the other three, as it proves that the interest in this event continues to date. For that purpose (only) the quality of the publication is of little or no relevance. gidonb (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleFlying does not count towards notability because it isn't reliable - the guideline that you quote does not say that non-reliable sources count for notability - you need to show significant coverage in reliable sources - for the three book sources, there needs to be significant coverage (ie. not just passing mention) - do they show that?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in Simon does not seem to be very extensive - a mention that the incident occured and discussion about how British tabloid newspapers said nice things about the pilot (in a discussion about how flight crew behaviour in accidents and near-misses. Similarly, Branson's book merely talks about how Branson entertained the flight crew on his private island after the incident - again - not really significant coverag. I can't see the Balmforth source.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While not all these statements hold water, I will refer you to my previous answer that had already covered the gist of these arguments. gidonb (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources found by gidonb. Whether people were killed/injured/wounded are made up criteria that have nothing to do with notability and are not considered in a valid close. I would not object to a merge to one of the articles mentioned by Carguychris per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Airbus A340#Accidents or Heathrow Airport#Incidents and accidents. A standalone article is not warranted: the sources found do not meet WP:SIGCOV, and the accident fails WP:EVENT.Rosbif73 (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'll AGF on the sources given by gidonb. S5A-0043^Talk 09:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect The sources given cannot be classified as significant coverage as they are only brief and passing mentions. No evidence of lasting effects and in general, fails the event criteria. If this were to close as a redirect, I would suggest a redirect to Virgin Atlantic#Incidents and accidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No need to redirect, IMO, because the incident is covered in Airbus_A340#Accidents, and that's all that is needed. I agree that the Simon book appears to have a mention, but not significant coverage. The Readers Digest coverage seems to be the most extensive, but such a source cannot alone establish GNG. Lamona (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources given by gidonb, the Reader's Digest article as well as The Standard, The Guardian, BBC have given coverage, well past 1997. Regardless of how the incident may be, I'm certain that this article shouldn't be deleted on grounds of WP:GNG. Not to mention the landing gear recommendations given to Airbus with this incident. GalacticOrbits (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • People keep mentioning a Readers Digest article - what reference is this? - as far as I can tell, none of the references are from Reader's Digest.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Google Books, and I recall having seen the RD version excerpted somewhere (here?) in a religious magazine. It may be above but I'm not seeing it. Lamona (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)][reply]

Ah, I usually use DuckDuckGo and not Google so that's where it came up: RD. It's from 2004. Lamona (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment, The Standard's article only briefly mentions Flight 24. Most of the article talks about the emergency landing of a Virgin Atlantic Boeing 747. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources have been found above that seem to indicate both notability and lasting impact. Would also support closing as it seems unlikely that this discussion will yield a consensus towards deletion. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delight Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a bundled nomination of five articles on UK MVNOs failing the notability guidelines for companies/products. They are part of a larger set of seven created by the same author in October 2011: two have since been deleted, one through PROD and the other through AfD.

The other four are:

• Dalya Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dialog Vizz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Now PAYG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stan Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rather than continue the slow trickle of individual deletions, I figure it makes more sense to discuss them all at once. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Kingdom, and England. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP about the leader of an organization, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for leaders of organizations. As always, just having a job is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but the content here is strictly on the level of "he is a person who has a job, the end", with absolutely no content about any specific things he did in the job, and the "referencing" consists entirely of his primary source staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers rather than any evidence of third-party reliable source coverage about his work in media or books. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added five more references to the point where I believe it passes WP:GNG, and I believe further references could be found to expand further. His role in shaping an international regulatory framework for deep sea mining seems significant. Uhooep (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone check out the sources added by Uhooep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:GNG per the sources available. They give significant coverage and are from reliable sources. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge anything here that isn't already included into International Seabed Authority. I only find one source that is specifically about him, which is the NY Times article about the criticism of his leadership. Everything else is about the organization, naming him as the director. Being the director is not itself notable, as Bearcat states above, as is evident from the paucity of information about him. I should note that the UN and WEF sources are not independent; bios in such sites are almost always provided by the subject of the bio. And the Q&A article is also not independent as that is him speaking about himself. Lamona (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the Q&A article also includes prose at the beginning which was written by the journalist, not the subject. Uhooep (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dalleth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources and none when I search. Not notable— Iadmc♫^talk  15:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Have added references. Looks notable to me, and I think there will be additional coverage in offline sources and in Cornish-language texts - both whilst it was operating, and in memoirs and historical discussion of this period of the language movement. Tacyarg (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone able to find some sources like those Tacyarg mentioned?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've added another couple of references, and tagged as citation needed the only sentence which is now not sourced. Probably need a Cornish history or Cornish language expert for more, or at least access to a decent reference library in Cornwall. Tacyarg (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider sources added by Tacyarg.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the work done by Tacyarg to improve the article, including adding multiple references. Should be sufficient to presume notability for this historic support organisation. ResonantDis_tortion 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Parker (police officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not meet criteria of notability Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Seem to be police officers all over the world with this name... I get hits from the US, Australia and elsewhere, but nothing for this person. I'm not seeing more than a one or two line biography here, unsure of the notability. Lack of sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Coverage here in the Sydney Morning Herald from 1930 including biographical information [9]. A google books search focused on "Edward Parker" and "Special Branch" does identify a number of hits ([10]). There is potential for meeting notability guidelines therefore as an WP:ATD I suggest moving to draftspace for incubation. ResonantDis_tortion 10:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning toward delete based on discussion so far, but at least a little more discussion would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WikiProject England/Article alerts, a bot-maintained listing of a variety of changes affecting England related pages including deletion discussions