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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

• See also: Wikipedia:English Wikipedians' notice board

Scan for England related AfDs Scan for England related Prods Scan for England related TfDs

Jack Colman (author)[edit]

Jack Colman (author) (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)

No independent reliable sources found. Author thus fails WP:NBIO. GTrang (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and England. GTrang (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montreux Healthcare Fund[edit]

Montreux Healthcare Fund (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:NCORP. No in-depth significant coverage about the fund itself. Imcdc Contact 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Imcdc Contact 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Health and fitness, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lockley[edit]

Thomas Lockley (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 seem to pass GNG or even SNG. His work may be notable, he is not. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually should have CSD'd as its been deleted before. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first deletion seems to have happened 6 years ago, back when his Yasuke book was yet to reach the other side of the pond. He and his work have since become much more notable since then, for better or worse. It's better we keep this page for that reason alone. --Jnglmpera (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is significant coverage and reviews of African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke including in the Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, Library Journal, Booklist, and a large number of other places. Author meets the notability guidelines at WP:Author.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, United Kingdom, and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Thibaut (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iain McKee[edit]

Iain McKee (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 appear to meet WP:GNG - a WP:BEFORE search turned up no focused coverage, just passing mentions in coverage about projects he was associated with in some way. Also does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR as his roles are mostly non-significant. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nirad Solanki[edit]

Nirad Solanki (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)

There is a lot of refbombing in this orphan article. Whilst a lot of the coverage confirms he bought businesses and bars, none of this is indepth to meet WP:SIGCOV. Just a run of the mill businessman that doesn't meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, and England. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Charles Firebrace, 2nd Baronet[edit]

Sir Charles Firebrace, 2nd Baronet (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)

Baronets are not normally notable and there doesn’t seem to be anything that would amount to a claim of notability with this subject. Mccapra (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Mccapra (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. First Baronets are certainly notable, but not necessarily their successors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Oswalds Retail Park[edit]

St Oswalds Retail Park (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:GNG and WP:NBUILD. all sourcing appears to be routine coverage. Mdann52 (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree fails WP:GNG, all references WP:ROTM. Orange sticker (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG. Nothing remarkable about this shopping centre. Ajf773 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep + add more sources Despite me being the author of the article, I believe the area is notable enough to have an article. Unlike a previous page i made earlier about a school in Kingsholm, It is gaining more notability from sources after the opening of the Popeyes there. Gloucestershire Live has reported alot on it as well. Snipertron12 Talk 07:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete About as bog-standard as a shopping centre as you can possibly get, and the opening of a chicken restaurant is just an unnotable tenant switch. Nate • (chatter) 23:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion Asset Management[edit]

Fusion Asset Management (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:NCORP. The sources used are either written by the firm's founder or are interviews with him that rule out independence. I so far cannot see any proper independence sources that provide significant coverage on the firm itself. Imcdc Contact 03:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Imcdc Contact 03:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORP. 3 gnews hits says it all, lacking third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just use Google seach instead of Google News. Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability. - Altenmann >talk 04:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails NCORP and Reliable sources. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hedgefund journal, UCITS hedge Funds, Eurohedge and Hedgeweek are not reliable sources? Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails NCORP. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  can you specify exactly how and where it fails NCORP please? Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This company's founder is also up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirill Ilinski. LibStar (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. Here are examples of independent sources

  https://www.ipe.com/investment/asset-management-fees-whats-the-going-rate/10012128.article

  https://www.ft.com/content/e6aff8b0-5480-11df-8bef-00144feab49a

  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trends-in-economics-a-calculus-of-risk/ Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose the deletion of the article on Fusion Asset Management for the following reasons:

Fusion Asset Management is a well-regarded company within the financial sector, with 20+ years track record particularly known for its innovative approaches to asset management and risk mitigation. The company's methodologies and strategies have been widely discussed and adopted within the industry.

Contrary to the claim of insufficient independent sources, Fusion Asset Management has been featured in several reputable financial publications. These include coverage in the Financial Times, Bloomberg, Hedge Fund Journal, and Hedgeweek. These sources provide independent verification of the company's activities, achievements, and contributions to the finance industry.

In addition to these, Fusion Asset Management’s methodologies and research have been cited in academic papers and industry reports, further establishing its impact and recognition beyond self-published content.

If there are particular sections of the article that do not comply with Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards, they can be revised. Specific feedback on which sections need improvement would be greatly appreciated, allowing for targeted revisions rather than a blanket deletion.

Deleting the article would overlook the company’s impact and the opportunity to provide comprehensive and accurate information to the public. I urge for a reconsideration of the deletion proposal, focusing on improving the article rather than removing it.

Also, I want to point out that Wikipedia articles for Kirill Ilinski and the company he founded - Fusion Asset Management where on Wikipedia for more then 10 years, and no one ever questioned their compliance with Wikipedia policy.

The fact that both pages were nominated for deletion (instead of suggesting improvements) just within 2 days, make me think that this can be commercially motivated. Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or update)

I oppose the deletion of the article on Fusion Asset Management for the following reasons:

Fusion Asset Management is a well-regarded company within the financial sector, with 20+ years track record particularly known for its innovative approaches to asset management and risk mitigation. The company's methodologies and strategies have been widely discussed and adopted within the industry.

Contrary to the claim of insufficient independent sources, Fusion Asset Management has been featured in several reputable financial publications. These include coverage in the Financial Times, Bloomberg, Hedge Fund Journal, and Hedgeweek. These sources provide independent verification of the company's activities, achievements, and contributions to the finance industry.

In addition to these, Fusion Asset Management’s methodologies and research have been cited in academic papers and industry reports, further establishing its impact and recognition beyond self-published content.

If there are particular sections of the article that do not comply with Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards, they can be revised. Specific feedback on which sections need improvement would be greatly appreciated, allowing for targeted revisions rather than a blanket deletion.

Deleting the article would overlook the company’s impact and the opportunity to provide comprehensive and accurate information to the public. I urge for a reconsideration of the deletion proposal, focusing on improving the article rather than removing it.

Also, I want to point out that Wikipedia articles for Kirill Ilinski and the company he founded - Fusion Asset Management where on Wikipedia for more then 10 years, and no one ever questioned their compliance with Wikipedia policy.

The fact that both pages were nominated for deletion (instead of suggesting improvements) just within 2 days, make me think that this can be commercially motivated.

Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose your relation to the company Fusion Asset Management, per Wikipedia rules of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. - Altenmann >talk 16:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Mills (Great Train Robbery)[edit]

Jack Mills (Great Train Robbery) (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:VICTIM. This seems like a totally un-necessary biography and a WP:CONTENTFORK of the Great Train Robbery. The subject was not individually notable, and his death was a part of the larger train robbery so having a separate article like Death of Jack Mills doesn't seem appropriate. A merge or redirect to Great Train Robbery would be an acceptable WP:ATD. 4meter4 (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a redirect to Great Train Robbery (1963). Procyon117 (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nomination. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akin Gazi[edit]

Akin Gazi (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 actor. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Cowlibob (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

: Hi, @Cowlibob: I suppose that WP:NACTOR is more likely to apply. Regarding its criteria: 'Such a person may be considered notable if:

1) The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or

2) The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.'

I think 1) is more likely to apply. I can see from his page that he has appeared in almost two dozen films and television shows which are sufficiently notable to have their own article. Do you accept that they are notable? If so, is your case simply that his roles are not significant? How do you believe that a significant role is defined for the purposes of notability in WP:NACTOR? Is there a guideline or 'case law' supporting this? Thanks. Jontel (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KEEP Gazi's article seemingly meets the criteria of WP:NACTOR i.e. 'Such a person may be considered notable if the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows...' in that he has appeared in multiple (around two dozen) productions which have their own articles (and so are presumably notable) and his generally mid ranking in credited roles are presumably sufficiently significant. The case for keeping the article is strengthened by a career duration at this level of almost two decades WP:SUSTAINED. However, without searching through the reviews of his productions, there appears to be little independent reliable secondary coverage of him, which would be required to pass WP:BASIC. The key guiding text appears to be: 'People are likely to be notable if they meet (WP:NACTOR)...(However)...meeting (WP:NACTOR) does not guarantee that a subject should be included.' i.e. WP:NACTOR alone is not sufficient for notability. Given his roles in so many notable productions, is there a case for giving editors time to find the coverage necessary to meet WP:BASIC, as suggested in WP:ATD, by leaving it for a period? Jontel (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Robbie[edit]

Sue Robbie (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 contain any reliable, verifiable references and no other sources can be found through a web search, adherence to WP:ENTERTAINER is dubious; limited evidence of significant coverage in multiple notable productions. Redtree21 (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and England. Redtree21 (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of images of her, not much sigcov in RS Traumnovelle (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not enough coverage for WP:GNG. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Benjamin[edit]

Jonny Benjamin (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 am the article subject, and I regard myself as a non-notable, private person now, and I want the article to be deleted please Jonnybenjamin (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Both Jonnybenjamin and Jlf2025 have held themselves out as the article's subject. —C.Fred (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i created a new account as per the advice of Geoffrey Lane-i was following the instructions step by step from his reply to Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team Re: [Ticket#2024071110029918] Request to delete page about me Jonnybenjamin (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have corrected the link; it previously linked to a non-existent article. Please confirm this is the correct link. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BLP1E. I have removed some of the more unnecessary personal details. The Stranger on the Bridge might be a redirect target, or another candidate for deletion. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Stranger on the Bridge: per WP:1E. C F A 💬 20:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  also support protection per below. C F A 💬 03:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and protect so it can’t be undone. We don’t need this amount of sensitive personal information about a living person. Mccapra (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Health and fitness, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetham Tenants' and Residents' Alliance[edit]

Cheetham Tenants' and Residents' Alliance (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 local residents association. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. Lack of coverage due to being relatively new. LibStar (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could not find any independent coverage, subject seems to fail WP:ORGCRIT. Besides, the article itself seems to be promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorann Gencov (talk • contribs) 19:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Vaughan[edit]

Archie Vaughan (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)

So what exactly makes this guy notable? Being the son of Michael Vaughan, is all I can tell. He hasn't played cricket at a senior level and hasn't done anything of note in cricket to warrant inclusion. No amount of WP:ROUTINE refbombs can hide that he is a WP:GNG fail. AA (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AA (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, fails WP:GNG. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don’t understand whether he has already played for Somerset and the England U19 to pass WP:NCRIC, but signing a contract with the club and being called up to the U19 team is being covered in the media, which indicates the passage WP:SIGCOV. I will list several secondary sources, you can easily find more [1][2][3] Tau Corvi (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But why is that notable? Plenty of people get signed by major sports teams and never go onto do anything. Is the bar really set this low? Again, if his father wasn't a famous cricketer, he would not get any coverage. AA (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article was moved to mainspace via Afc. Subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Hildreth gazzard (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orsett Heath Academy[edit]

Orsett Heath Academy (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school, which opened in 2020,and cannot see significant coverage in reliable sources which is not run of the mill. I think it is WP:TOOSOON for the school to be notable. Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe merge to Orsett Heath or Grays, Essex (as its not actually in Orsett Heath). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Try to focus on one Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the academy plays a key role in the local community and its educational system, making it a relevant topic.--RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Clifford[edit]

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]

  This archive URL of his profile from Loughborough has Cliffords employment history: [4] - I've also updated the citation in the article to include the archive-url. Furthermore I've identified and added two SCOPUS profiles including [5]. ResonantDis_tortion 21:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Noted academic.... Full Prof at KCL and Loughborough till retirement 2020. Lots of cited works (including Key methods in geography Cited by 1500+) (Perhaps searching GS under NJ Clifford, Nicholas Clifford (and checking is the same Clifford) adds up to substantial pubs... Technical clear Pass of WP:prof (8) by virtue of being (formerly) the editor of Progress in Physical Geography. Added refs, including editorials in the journal, substantiating this (Msrasnw (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Is the River Science Wikidot source reliable? I had assumed not, but on further review it does seem to be a closed-wiki with some editorial control. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The author of the article is another UK academic in the same field. BhamBoi (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agreed with the !vote by Msrasnw, in particular 4 figure citations. Furthermore a quick google identified secondary book reviews [6], and [7]. Also the worldcat profile here shows his books are held by hundreds of libraries, which should count for something. ResonantDis_tortion 22:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Prof: was a full Professor at a major university, and has lots of citations. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the subject of this article appears to meet the guidelines (WP:ACADEMIC). He has a considerable publication record and his work, especially Key Methods in Geography, has been cited over 1,500 times. His role as the editor of Progress in Physical Geography adds even more weight to his notability. His teaching roles at King's College London and Loughborough University also prove that he is notable. Other references and articles support the claims in the entry, further enhancing his standing.--AstridMitch (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep can be considered notable according to WP:PROF#C5 (Readership at Nottingam) and WP:PROF#C4 (key methods in human geography by Clifford is an introductory level textbook used in British universities) Vorann Gencov (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live Art Development Agency[edit]

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 [8] 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The vast majority of sources in the article are primary or affiliated, or they are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that discuss LADA in passing. However, we have a bare minimum pass of WP:NORG with Chatzichristodoulou et al., Martin and Keidan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Phillips (English cricketer, born 2003)[edit]

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]
• Redirect to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players. He does not meet GNG - this is the one qualifying source. Gloscricket is obviously not independent coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the delsort issues, more eyes won't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but he may be notable in the future, i.e. WP:NOTNOW. SWinxy (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SWinxy, in this case, wouldn't a redirect be more appropriate? That way, if he becomes notable in the future, someone won't have to start the article from scratch. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, borderline decision but given the rhythms and vagaries of the English county cricket season we are approaching the part where younger players are used to a greater extent, precisely the time this page will be useful to people who follow the game to refer to. Hildreth Gazzard (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players. References are currently insufficient for GNG. Frank Anchor 18:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Passes WP:NCRIC as a cricketer who has played at the highest domestic level. I would add [9] and maybe [10] to the references. Tau Corvi (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

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