Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

WP:DELSORT/ENGLANDWP:DELSORT/ENGLAND

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:English Wikipedians' notice board

Scan for England related AfDs

Scan for England related Prods
Scan for England related TfDs

England

David Docwra

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

Only played one first class game. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. All the sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, England, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worst case situation here is an obvious redirect to List of Oxford University Cricket Club players#D where a note will need to be added summarising his life. This is a clear WP:ATD which has had consensus over a very long period of time as a way of dealing with articles such as this and is part of policy rather than guidelines. There's likely some sourcing around Docwra, and it wouldn't surprise me if at some point we could write a more source based summary of his life, but it's tricky to source enough just now Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why bother AfD'ing? Just redirect to List of Oxford University Cricket Club players#D. AA (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Hartigan

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

Notability tag up for a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jw93d59 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, and England. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a WP:BLP disaster waiting to happen. Bearian (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaista Aziz

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

Notabiliity tag up for two years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jw93d59 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and England. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While a long-term Notability tag is not by itself grounds for deletion nomination and WP:BEFORE must still be performed, per WP:JOURNALIST the following criteria are relevant for notability:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors - While there are two sources covering her work as a journalist ([4],[7]), one is by the subject's agency so does not support her standing amongst peers.

or The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique - No indication of this.

or The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) - The subject created a petition that received a relatively large number of signatures, but other than this the sources do not suggest her work has been covered independently of her.

or The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums - Again, no indication of this threshold being met. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 18:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She writes for a reliable newspaper, has been involved in local politics, and did three stand-up gigs 15 years ago. I'm lost as to what she has done that's notable. Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Baxter

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

Notability tag up for several years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jw93d59 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, News media, and England. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage in independent sources. Bearian (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Baglioni

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

The article reads more like a promotional biography than an encyclopedic entry. Much of the content is unsourced, or sourced to highly unreliable or self-published material (e.g. personal websites, YouTube uploads from the subject, a dead local blog). There is little evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources that would establish notability under WP:BIO. The inclusion of unsourced claims about childhood experiences, family lineage, and personal relationships further contributes to the article’s promotional tone. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Switzerland, England, California, Nevada, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a chef of some local renown---his restaurant got a LA Times review back in the 1980s and received additional WP:MILL coverage of the restaurant's life cycle. (1 2)---but there is no significant coverage of the subject to substantiate WP:GNG. -- BriefEdits (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally promo article, no evidence of notability, clearly fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Palmer (commentator)

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

fails WP:GNG; entire article is unsourced Joeykai (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) *Delete per nom. Fails SIGCOV. Herinalian (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like wow, he passes WP:NAUTHOR easy, published for BBC has done commentary work for them like [1], published works on different websites, [2], article written on his family which adds some notability by association Hull Live, articles like Sky Sports: Cristiano Ronaldo must reinvent himself to prolong his Real Madrid career, says Rob Palmer, (NAUTHOR) interviewed for radio [3]. Easily notable personality. There is so much online, Terrible nomination. Govvy (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Savile

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

Fails WP:GNG - insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. Sources are primarily promotional materials, personal profiles, and self-published content. While subject is a working actor, no evidence of significant coverage meeting WP:ENTERTAINER guidelines. Keironoshea (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Keironoshea (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and England. jolielover♥talk 17:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Harris (cricketer)

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

Only one List A appearance. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. LibStar (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cheshire County Cricket Club List A players where a note can be added to summarise the little we know about him and to provide references. I can't find anything obvious, and there's a lack of detail with regard to things like club cricket, so it seems unlikely that we'll find very much. Redirection to a suitable list is the consensus for how we deal with articles such as these Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per BST, and a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Vestrian24Bio 16:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Walker (music broadcaster)

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

Notability not established despite a notability tag having been put in place three months ago. Jw93d59 (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Music, Radio, and United Kingdom. jolielover♥talk 15:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article was almost deleted through PROD. Why did you remove the tag at the last minute and bring it to WP:AFD? It's just unusual behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep difficult to find independent sources as very common name and works for the BBC, but I think she has received enough third party coverage for her work to pass WP:GNG [4][5]
Leaning towards Delete. There are very few sources outside promotional bits from her employer, the BBC, discussing her. The sources in the above comment are [6] not actually about Walker and barely discuss her and [7] a semi-promotional blog from the BSO where she seems to have/had a position. Other than that the best I can find is an editorial from The Guardian [8] and an interview in a BBC magazine [9]. There isn't really a target for a merge either as her Radio 3 show doesn't have an article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open Britain

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

Fails WP:V and WP:RS: article is outdated, misleading, and based on dead or unverifiable sources. Lacks independent coverage to meet WP:N.

This article should be deleted because it fails core Wikipedia content policies, specifically WP:V and WP:RS. Almost all of the information is significantly outdated and misleading, with references that are either dead or do not verify the claims made. As a result, the article does not reflect a neutral or accurate representation of the subject, contrary to WP:NPOV.

Attempts have been made to address these issues through all proper channels: declaring a conflict of interest and editing transparently, submitting edit requests, engaging on the talk page, and even proposing deletion through WP:PROD. However, the fundamental problems remain unresolved. Without reliable, independent, secondary sources providing verifiable and up-to-date coverage, the subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements (WP:N).

In its current form, the article promotes misinformation rather than providing encyclopedic value, and this misinformation is actively harmful to the organisation it describes, since the content is inaccurate and misleading to readers. For these reasons, I believe deletion is the most appropriate outcome. RoseOpenBritain (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Europe, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs updating but there is an abundance of reliable, independent sources that could be added, I think WP:BEFORE is needed here. Comment RoseOpenBritain has declared their COI on their talk page but not in this AfD. Orange sticker (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes notability requirements with extensive independent and reliable sources that cover the organisation, particularly for its activity during the main "Brexit" years, so deletion seems inappropriate here. I do however completely understand the points raised by the nominator (who I note has a disclosed COI) about the current state of the page, and will try to update it accordingly using more recent sources that ensure the page's claims are verified and accurate. Greenleader(2) (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information and COI declaration: Thank you for your constructive responses. I should formally declare here that I have a conflict of interest as I work with Open Britain (this is also noted on my user page). To clarify the current issues: Open Britain has changed significantly from its historical role during the Brexit campaign and now operates as a pro-democracy organisation focused on electoral reform https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/voter-id-elections-chaos-new-rules-polling-station https://bylinetimes.com/2024/12/04/keir-starmer-rejects-call-for-fairer-votes-despite-mps-voting-in-favour-of-proportional-representation/. However, the current Wikipedia article contains severely outdated information - of all directors listed, only Mark Kieran remains registered with Companies House, with the rest having resigned. This outdated content is actively harmful to the organisation's current work. The organisation manages the largest APPG in Parliament and will play an essential role when the government announces its upcoming elections bill. Therefore, it is key that members of the public can find accurate and up to date information about Open Britain. I have prepared a fully sourced and current draft (User:RoseOpenBritain/Open Britain Draft) that demonstrates how this topic can be covered accurately with proper sourcing. If deletion is not the preferred outcome, this draft could guide necessary updates to address the verifiability and accuracy concerns I've raised. Given the organisation's current prominent role in electoral reform, having accurate information available is important for public understanding. If dramatic changes are not made to this page, Wikipedia will be platforming misinformation which actively harms the organisation - this is concerning. Thank you for your help so far. ~~~~

RoseOpenBritain (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roger ...felde

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

"Presumably" notable politician, but absolutely fails WP:GNG and a snowball chance in hell we will ever have any coverage of him --Altenmann >talk 06:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. jolielover♥talk 07:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Hereford (UK Parliament constituency)#MPs 1295–1640 as an WP:ATD. WP:NOPAGE applies. Curbon7 (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Curbon7 Andre🚐 07:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:COMMONSENSE when not even the name is known. Geschichte (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He is presumed notable already because he was a member of parliament of the House of Commons, as per WP:NPOL. While I understand people are wishing to seek a common sense solution here, there is no precedent for deleting a page for a former member of a national legislature who is already presumed notable, and to me it doesn't seem particularly sensible to seek to alter this. The nominator acknowledges the presumed notability here and therefore WP:GNG isn't needed, so I would politely request they withdraw this nomination. Greenleader(2) (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is one similar instance: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John ? (MP for City of York). At the end of the day, we defer to WP:NOPAGE; if all that can ever be said about a person is X is a politician who served in Y legislature for Z years and literally nothing else, a contextualized redirect is of more value than such an article. Curbon7 (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hereford (UK Parliament constituency)#MPs 1295–1640. While the subject would ordinarily pass NPOL, the fact that we do not know (yet) a full name is a strong reason not to have a stand-alone page. That said, if more information is found, a stand-alone page would then be appropriate. --Enos733 (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. A presumption can be overcome. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Even holders of NPOL-passing offices still have to have reliable sourcing with which we can write some actual information about them. They aren't exempted from GNG just because of the political office per se, and still have to have viable sourcing — the only thing NPOL extends is a presumption of notability pending the addition of better sourcing, not a "get out of ever having to have any sourcing at all" card. An article can still be dealt with some other way (such as redirection to a related topic, like the office that he held) if such sourcing turns out to be in a state of failure to exist, so that we remain permanently unable to say anything more than most but not all of his name. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orwellian

AfDs for this article:

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

This word should be either redirected to George Orwell or soft-redirected to wikt:Orwellian. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the useful encyclopedic information here can be easily merged to Orwell's biography article if need be. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Arts, Language, Literature, Philosophy, History, Politics, and England. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources used in the article show GNG - they don't just mention the word in passing, they have whole sources around the word and its connotation and significance. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Orwell § Influence on language and writing per WP:NOPAGE at the very least, since pretty much everything here is already there. This doesn't need a separate article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems like an unused neologism. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As much of a deletionist as I consider myself, this isn't a neologism, and it's quite well used. An ngrams search shows the first uses in the 1940s, with generally increasing usage ever since. Not only that, but we actually have sources discussing this as a concept (not just as a word), so I think there's actually worthwhile content here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG, multiple sources in article that directly address the term itself. Additional ones found after a quick search NYT, Vox, USA Today. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But why not redirect as I suggested? It's a mere paragraph, and there's just not that much to say about it outside the context of Orwell's biography generally. And indeed, this content is already there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suzana Ansar

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

No in depth coverage in independent reliable source. Sources used in the article are closely associated with the subject and some are trivial mentions. Rht bd (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Rht bd (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, several news articles and articles in many wiki languages. It seems User:Rht bd selected several female Bangladeshi musicians to nominate Afd with the same reasons ("no significant coverage" or "no independent coverage"). Although all of them have proper sources. -Afifa Afrin (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which reference of the article at present do you think is reliable, significant and independent in nature that makes the subject notable for Wikipedia? Rht bd (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Rahman

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable source. Rht bd (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Rht bd (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deeder Zaman

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

no significant coverage in independent reliable source. Sources used are closely associated and some are trivial mentions. Rht bd (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Rht bd (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Fairly notable for his work with the Asian Dub Foundation and political activism [10]. Svartner (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State of Bengal

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

no significant coverage in independent reliable source. Rht bd (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Rht bd (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 1,500+ word entry about him in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB) is a clear pass of WP:ANYBIO.[11] --Worldbruce (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan, Jordan, Turkey, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Worldbruce. Mccapra (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the artist seems to be notable enough in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability. Worldbruce's comment on the artist being in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is also a strong argument. MelikaShokoufandeh (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per point 3 of WP:ANYBIO. – Ike Lek (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the ODNB entry by itself would be enough to establish notability, and his obituary in The Independent (ref [2],[6]) qualifies as significant coverage. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 17:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Colchester United W.F.C. season

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

I'm struggling to comprehend why we have a separate article for an individual club season for a club competing in the 9th tier of English women's football. This season is already covered more than adequately in the main article - Colchester United W.F.C.. Even if there were independent, reliable sources for all the statistics and results in this article, this would be way below the level that would usually be considered for a stats article. In English men's football, typically only the top 4 tiers are covered to this level of detail. As a stand-alone topic, this doesn't meet WP:GNG. I also think WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies. Although they are at slightly higher amateur levels, 2024–25 Colchester United W.F.C. season and 2025–26 Colchester United W.F.C. season may also need looking at. Those advocating for keep, please can I ask that you cite a Wikipedia notability guideline? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Blatant fails in WP:NSEASON. Svartner (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please note consensus on other amateur seasons that all ended in deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 CS Saint-Laurent season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024/25 Romford FC Season Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per other obscure, amateur seasons mentioned by Spiderone. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A season topic for a team in a league that is not notable enough to have a topic is clearly not notable. CNC (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic State

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

Unreferenced with a lack of independent notability. Could not find any reliable sources proving its notability. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced list of games. Only found a book bio of Whittall. IgelRM (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ludo Campbell-Reid

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

There seems enough questioning of his notability here, vs. BIO puffery, to at least justify opening the discussion through AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"sheer wankery of the details"

Oh, antipodeans, we poms do love you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, England, and New Zealand. jolielover♥talk 01:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROMO. Remove the puffery and there's negligible remaining encyclopedic content. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity puff piece. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He's had significant coverage from both of Stuff and the NZ Herald, which are NZ's two main news publications. Voting keep as he appears to just pass GNG. I've added refs and removed some of the puffery/promo, but probably could do with some further edits. Nil🥝 02:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, concur that the coverage in major NZ publications over a period of many years is sufficient for this guy to meet GNG, if there are concerns about the article being promotional etc they can be pretty easily handled without recourse to deletion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verlag Inspiration Un Limited

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

Can find no sigcov, only citations to books they published. What brief coverage does exist is about 1 book they published, "50 Theses on the Expulsion of the Germans from Central and Eastern Europe 1944-1948", which should have an article because it was a big controversy, but not them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Companies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Morris (health activist)

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this BLP of a health activist, and added a reference to some local news coverage. I cannot find significant coverage, however, and don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- According to WP:ANYBIO, an Order of the British Empire should be enough to establish notability. There is a reliable source indicating that he is indeed and MBE -- this article is poorly written, and stinks of Wikipedia:SELFPROMOTION, but it satisfies the notability guideline at this point. Slightly off topic but there needs to be dialogue on the notability of MBE's as there are a ton of them. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understood it was CBE or KBE upwards that would be likely to confer automatic notability. Found a couple of relevant discussions: 2018; 2016; 2017. Tacyarg (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, CBE or above. MBE is certainly not high enough. Far too many of them are awarded every year. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005

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

It has been stated that legislation is automatically notable under WP:GNG and WP:RS. This is not true.

wp:RSPRIMARY states that "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources"
wp:ARTN states that "Notability is a property of a subject"
wp:PRIMARY states "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."

I have not found any secondary sources that mention this topic to establish notability. Landpin (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Landpin (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008

I find the nomination unconvincing and having more of sophistry about it than any attempt to build content. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Regulatory+Reform+%28Execution+of+Deeds+and+Documents%29+Order+2005%22+-wikipedia
largely lists primary sources or sources that briefly mention it in a list containing other law reform commission recommendations or other statutory instruments, without explaining the details
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Regulatory+Reform+%28Execution+of+Deeds+and+Documents%29+Order+2005%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1
empty
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Regulatory+Reform+%28Execution+of+Deeds+and+Documents%29+Order+2005%22
largely lists sources that just list statutory instruments, or law reform recommendations without really explaining what the details of the legislation are, or sources that discuss land policy and briefly mention this legislation in passing without explaining the details.

These links are available to you too where it says "find sources". Landpin (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wp:WHYN says "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic."

Landpin (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generic regulation, no indication of significance, no independent sources establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 13:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of regulatory reform orders. This is a perfect example of something that isn't exactly notable from significant coverage, yet just important enough that it should be mentioned somewhere. Bearian (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Donington Park Superleague Formula round

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

A participant in the 2008 deletion discussion said “ It needs references to establish notability, but for now give it the benefit of the doubt.”. I think we have given it the benefit of the doubt for long enough now Chidgk1 (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and United Kingdom. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion due to previous AfD mentioned in nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islah Abdur-Rahman

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

Very poor non-independent sources failing to establish notability. Rht bd (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am looking for sources, and will add them as I find them. I note that he won the Best Video Channel award at the 2019 Asian Media Awards for the Corner Shop Show. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete $Destinyokhiria 💬$ 21:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no substance to this Delete vote so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's very much borderline, as the subject appears to have received a decent amount of coverage after being arrested on Hajj in Saudi Arabia for saying a pro-Palestine prayer, see here, but it appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E failure as that's all I could find in reliable sources. His acting and such appears to have only been covered in extremely local blogs/papers without evidence of strong editorial standards such as this, alongside a couple of primary-source interviews already in the article. On the whole I'd say he fails GNG by a whisker. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ACTOR. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

Contents

England

David Docwra

James Hartigan

Shaista Aziz

Alice Baxter

Emilio Baglioni

Rob Palmer (commentator)

Oliver Savile

Keith Harris (cricketer)

Sarah Walker (music broadcaster)

Open Britain

Roger ...felde

Orwellian

Suzana Ansar

Lucy Rahman

Deeder Zaman

State of Bengal

2023–24 Colchester United W.F.C. season

Graphic State

Ludo Campbell-Reid

Verlag Inspiration Un Limited

Phil Morris (health activist)

Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005

2008 Donington Park Superleague Formula round

Islah Abdur-Rahman

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also