Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

1. Edit this page and add {{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|United Kingdom|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom/archive 2

watch

See also:

• Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland

Scan for United Kingdom related AfDs Scan for United Kingdom related Prods Scan for United Kingdom related TfDs

United Kingdom

Palatine School

Palatine School (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)

Likely fails WP:NSCHOOL / WP:GNG - can't find much coverage (per WP:BEFORE) beyond announcements from local papers/regulatory (dft/ofsted)/directory listings - therefore failing WP:SIGCOV. been flagged for WP:GNG as a top banner since 2015 with no changes Deveroonie (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Deveroonie (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Oak Grove College

Oak Grove College (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)

Likely fails WP:NSCHOOL / WP:GNG - can't find much coverage (per WP:BEFORE) beyond announcements from local papers/regulatory (dft/ofsted)/directory listings - therefore failing WP:SIGCOV Deveroonie (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Deveroonie (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Out of the Darkness (Hinton novel)

Out of the Darkness (Hinton novel) (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)

Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. The article has been tagged for notability & overreliance on primary sources since 2015, and I have only found one WP:RS review, in The Times Educational Supplement (ProQuest 209537477). I am unable to access the full text of this review to determine how much it counts towards NBOOK, but no matter how lengthy more would be needed. I did find this article on newspapers.com but I don't think it counts as notability-establishing WP:SIGCOV.

A redirect to Nigel Hinton may be appropriate as an ATD. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Redirect found nothing useful for notability after searching on newspapers.com, proquest, google books, google scholar, IA, Ebsco, and Gale. There is a 1-paragraph review in The Bookseller but it's like... half a Publishers Weekly review in length, so I wouldn't call it sigcov. Maybe if we had 3 or so reviews it would help push it over the edge but we don't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Redirect if I have to decide I do not have any strong feelings over whether it should be deleted or not. I created this article before I knew about the policy on notability and since then, Wikipedia became more strict on the creation of new articles. This made me feel less confident about creating new articles feeling all the notable topics are already covered and decided to instead focus on improving existing articles although I have since created redirects and at least one disambiguation page.Tk420 (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

2003 ISAF Youth Sailing World Championships

2003 ISAF Youth Sailing World Championships (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)

Stands on single source, failing to withstand WP:GNG. Yavuz Ben (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Games, Politics, Sports, Sport of athletics, Lists, Hong Kong, Europe, Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, Australia, Argentina, and United States of America. Yavuz Ben (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

extra sources added. other articles in series accepted despite similar sourcing. Fin.Seaman (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Youth Sailing World Championships#Editions, same championship ~2026-43057-50 (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Reasonable Blackman

Reasonable Blackman (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)

As discussed on this blog post , the inference that this person was Black (the entire reason that they are considered notable to begin with) is entirely based on their surname, which cannot be used to confidently infer that he is Black. Given that his life is only known from a handful of brief mentions in administrative documents, there is little of significance to say about him regardless, and therefore they don't warrant a standalone article. If the article is to be kept, the title should probably be changed to "Reasonable Blackmore", which appears to be his actual name. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Africa, United Kingdom, and England. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Pinging talkpage commenters @Msalt:, @Captgouda24: @Nextrava:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Kaufmann's book devotes an entire chapter to this person and explains, explicitly, that "a surname alone cannot confirm a person's ethnicity". It is because he was described as 'blackmor' and 'a blackmore' ... "that we know he was African". The BBC History Magazine seems to be supportive. I can only see snippets of Salkeld so I can't assess that book. Any contrary reliably published evidence should be added to the article. There seem to be many other helpful sources available, including a book covering a UK GCSE history syllabus. I prefer these sources over speculation on the talk page or on a Substack blog. Thincat (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll just add that the blog makes a strong argument (I think) but on WP we go by sources published by reliable publishing houses, not blogs. Thincat (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

How in the hell is a GCSE history book a reliable source? BBC History is just repeating the claims made by Habib & Salkeld and Kaufmann and has nothing to add to the topic. The blog post goes into detail about how the claim that Reasonable is described as "a blackmor" is very tenuous at best and could easily be explained as a result of typographic error, reading error of the difficult to parse cursive handwriting, or variant spellings common in official documents during the Tudor period. I'm not arguing that there isn't WP:SIGCOV, there is, but that having a standalone article does not benefit the encyclopedia. He's already covered at Black_British_people#16th_century, which is about as much coverage is worth giving to him given the extremely limited knowledge of his life. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a unique case. I agree that the Substack article is persuasive, but it is also not usable for our purposes unless it is written up in a non-WP:SPS source. Per WP:WSAW, when sources are wrong the first (and perhaps best) option is to "quietly get it right". In this case, "quietly getting it right" might look like deleting the article, since the subject's entire case for WP:N (his perceived African ancestry) is questionable. Alternatively, if the article is kept, all claims about the subject's ancestry could be attributed rather than stating them in wikivoice. Astaire (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

History of the GB Junior Rowing Composite System

History of the GB Junior Rowing Composite System (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)

Contested PROD in 2012. Unsourced since creation. Can be merged into British Rowing#History if sources are found for its content; otherwise, does not meet WP:NSPORTS. Coeusin (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Sports, and United Kingdom. Coeusin (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of History-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete - or merge per nom, as nom reasons are pretty convincing (no sources since 2012 is a good while, so prolly fails NSPORTS or even WP:GNG :/ - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Chief Engineer (Gibraltar)

Chief Engineer (Gibraltar) (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)

The article is based solely on sources from the 19th century and other wikipedia articles. As it stands, it does not pass WP:GNG and a list that stops in 1800 is not likely to be of use to our readers. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

2026 United Kingdom floods

2026 United Kingdom floods (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 propose draftifying because the article clearly isnt ready for mainspace, and hasnt been worked on for a full day Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  Keep - I have expanded the article. Moondragon21 (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

JTC plc

JTC plc (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)

Just WP:CORPTRIV with no indication of notability. I wasn't able to turn up anything of substance on google, google scholar or google news so WP:LISTED doesn't seem to apply. Athanelar (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, United Kingdom, and Jersey. Athanelar (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: JTC has recently been acquired by Permira, so a merge there might be appropriate.

If kept, please note this rename request, as JTC is no longer a PLC.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the move to JTC Group was carried out, even though it is generally not considered correct to move articles up for AfD during the discussion. (No opinion on the article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hilary Cremin

Hilary Cremin (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 academic who fails WP:PROF. N.b. she was Jason Arday's former boss at Cambridge. Uhooep (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete:

The subject is clearly an established academic, but the current article does not demonstrate notability under

WP:PROF

or

WP:GNG

. The cited sources are primarily institutional pages from the University of Cambridge and related Cambridge organizations, which are primary sources and establish her positions and career but do not constitute significant independent coverage. Her academic appointments and publication record, including books published by Routledge, are not by themselves sufficient to establish notability

Alazar202 (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Clear Keep. Firstly her professorship is equivalent to a named/distinguished professorship, and is at a reasonably well-known university of decent quality, so she passes WP:NPROF on C5. We trust institutional pages for this sort of information on academics. Secondly, she passes as an author, or alternatively by C1-through-publication, based on her writings, such as "Rewilding Education" which as been reviewed independently. Less favourably, she's now getting in-depth coverage in reliable sources because of the recent controversy in Cambridge. Elemimele (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  "reasonably well-known university of decent quality": user page notes UK-based, British understatement, check. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. It's not clear to me whether "senior professor" is an official title at Cambridge that would be considered a step beyond ordinary full professor (as claimed above for #C5). Regardless, searching found six reviews of five books, enough for WP:AUTHOR: . —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think "senior professor" is being used here to mean grade 12 professor, or what used to just be called "professor" before the 2021/2022 change at Cambridge that changed the title of lecturers (grade 11) to also be "professor". It used to be that a "professor" at Cambridge was almost always notable, but I think now not, given that lecturers are now "professors" too. But in this case, as you note, WP:AUTHOR makes it moot. Jahaza (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  The grade 11 ones are probably mostly notable too, but through other criteria rather than #C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd expect any professors at Cambridge to be notable. In this case, per David Eppstein, there's a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR before we even consider any other criteria. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Avakin Life

Avakin Life (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)

A BEFORE search turned up zero reviews from reputable websites. The one VentureBeat article isn't enough to support a WP:PERMASTUB. No SIGCOV, not notable. 11WB 💬 03:10, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Technology, and United Kingdom. 11WB 💬 03:10, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete There's no significant coverage. Not notable MasterRayvis (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - I was able to find some coverage, but only one review - a review from Common Sense Media, a TechRaptor article about concerns regarding the game marketing NFTs to children, brief GamesIndustry.biz article regarding player count, and a few articles from Pocket Gamer (Article about AI tool Avacraft, article about an in-game music festival event, "Top 7 Second Life-like games" listicle entry, "Best open world games for Android phones and tablets" listicle entry). Waxworker (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  The "review" on the Common Sense Media site isn't a review, it looks to be a WP:UGC page of some kind. The others are fine as supplemental references, but without actual reception, there isn't an article here. 11WB 💬 18:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  @11WB: - The review is credited to a staff reviewer, Amanda Bindel - the "Parents Need to Know", "What's It About?", and "Is It Any Good?" sections are their review, with the "Parent and Kid Reviews" section being the only user-generated content. Waxworker (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  The "Is it good?" section is all of 100 words. This is not enough on its own to satisfy SIGCOV, let alone an entire article. 11WB 💬 20:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and the WP:SIGCOV requirement. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete The coverage found is partially routine and as a whole still fails to describe the game in any satisfactory way. VRXCES (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Swishing

Swishing (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 propose merging to Clothing swap, as swishing appears to be a short-lived British fad term for clothing swaps from the 2000s. Two of the three external links describe it as an aspirational tag given to swap parties by one organiser and a more aspirational name given to swap parties organised by Futerra, both purely in the context of clothes. Belbury (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related AfD discussions. Belbury (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Cat Allman

Cat Allman (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)

Nothing at WP:GNG for her... What am I missing? The article is 8 years old. 🪙 Silvymaro 🌏 22:21, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Technology, Software, United Kingdom, and England. 🪙 Silvymaro 🌏 22:21, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. There is no SIGCOV. Khalitate (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete: This article does not presently satisfy WP: GNG. Most of the sources used are either primary or affiliated sources which have helped prove her employment and participation in several open-source projects but offer very limited to almost non-existent independent coverage on Allman. Alazar202 (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Malcolm Grimston

Malcolm Grimston (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)

Marked this as needing additional sources for verification/notability back in February, since then a couple of TAs/SPA have added info but still no improvement in terms of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Does not pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPOL. Orange sticker (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science, United Kingdom, and England. Orange sticker (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Politicians. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Ian Dunbar

Ian Dunbar (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)

Lack of notability. Most sources are self published. TheLongTone (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Animal, Medicine, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - Significant independent coverage exists here. One, SFGATE, is cited. I also find WGN Radio, LA Times, Psychology Today, and Dog Time, as well as newspaper sources like November 5, 2006 Salina Journal (the most misunderstood dogs in america). I could also see a NAUTHOR pass here: Barking Up The Right Tree was reviewed by Library Journal and K9 Magazine and AFTER You Get Your Puppy was cited as a key book to read for dog owners by OSU and reviewed/recommended by the Dover Library (see Dover Community News (August 5, 2005) in Newspaper Archive) and potentially more offline sources which I don't have access to. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: England and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Admittedly the article is a mess. However, I can easily find a dozen or more newspaper and magazine articles about him and his books. I expect to find reviews of his books since they have sold well. I will try to get this article into decent shape in the next few days. Lamona (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Pete Heat

Pete Heat (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 notability guidelines - this is an area of interest for me, and Heat is well-known in those circles, but no more so than, say, your average circuit comedian. Not enough SIGCOV; what is out there currently is mostly interviews, reviews or promotional material. Haz215 (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Magic, Entertainment, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: this has been tagged as a potential NBIO failure almost since its creation in April 2016. In the BLP topic area, that is a very long time to have notability questioned. (No opinion beyond that.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed on both points. Haz215 (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Television-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:07, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Romany, the Diva of Magic

Romany, the Diva of Magic (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 take an interest in this area - Romany is highly-respected in those circles but doesn't have significant external notability beyond one or two TV appearances. Have looked for more recent SIGCOV to update the article with, but there doesn't appear to be very much. Haz215 (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Magic, Entertainment, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment from article subject — I am Romany, the subject of this article, and acknowledge my conflict of interest. I understand that accomplishments alone do not establish Wikipedia notability, but several substantial sources appear to have been overlooked:

• The BBC World Service produced a documentary devoted to my work, In the Studio: Romany – Diva of Magic, broadcast 5 June 2018. Producer Natasha Serlin followed the creation of a new stage act: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csww6t
• Paul Romhany, “Romany: Diva of Magic – Dream Big,” VANISH International Magic Magazine, edition 48, July 2018, pp. 60–75 — a substantial cover feature devoted to my career and work.
• Connie Boyd, “Romany Romany: Diva of Magic – Dream Big,” The Power of Magical Women, Vanish Press, 2025, pp. 205–208, ISBN 979-8-9999359-2-2 — a recent four-page biographical profile. I recognise that this develops material previously published in VANISH and do not suggest it should be double-counted as wholly independent coverage.
• “Romany, Diva of Magic,” The Linking Ring, vol. 87, no. 8, August 2007, pp. 30–33 — a four-page profile, in addition to the cover.
• “Romany Talks to John Helvin,” Mystery Magazine, vol. 2, issue 11, September 2011, pp. 20–24.
• The Stage reported that I represented the UK at the World Magic Seminar and became the first British performer to win the Siegfried & Roy Golden Lion Award: https://www.thestage.co.uk/features/2011-in-review-light-entertainment
• The Magic Circle’s official record describes Stage Magician of the Year as one of the most keenly contested competitions in UK magic and states that “Romany, the Diva of Magic, remains the only female winner”: https://themagiccircle.co.uk/about/competitions-and-awards/stage-magician-of-the-year/
• Showtown Blackpool’s permanent magic gallery includes my costume, Magic Circle trophy and recorded story. Its official launch coverage identifies me as a featured performer: https://www.visitblackpool.com/latest-news/showtown-opens-to-the-public/

My career has principally been in international live stage entertainment rather than television, so television appearances alone are not an appropriate measure of the available coverage. I respectfully ask uninvolved editors to assess whether this sustained specialist coverage, BBC documentary, trade-press coverage and institutional recognition satisfy the applicable notability guidelines. I can supply complete publication details or page scans if requested. EnchantedForest26 (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Steve Gore

Steve Gore (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 BLP of a magician, and added a reference. Coverage is local, however, and I do not think he meets WP:GNG or WP:NENTERTAINER. Article has been tagged with possible notability issue since 2022. Tacyarg (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Magic, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete. I take an interest in stage magic and the community around it, and Gore is well-respected in those circles, but his listed achievements are those of many high-level magicians and don't in themselves confer special notability. Haz215 (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Number 13 Beano Street

Number 13 Beano Street (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, only premise and other basic information. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:41, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:41, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Beano comic strips; reliable sources seem shallow compared to other entries in the series, but doesn't hurt to keep the redirect. /over.throws/^✎ 04:40, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - I've added a couple more sources to the article. A redirect or merge to List of Beano comic strips would be preferential over a delete if my additions arent enough to meet WP:GNG. Eopsid (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

The Grudge Match

The Grudge Match (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)

Effectively, the entirety of the article is unsourced and the references that are provided are a manual of how the game works and a Television guide which falls under routine coverage. Personal, I couldn't find any mention of the subject in books nor news. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that the subject likely fails WP:NTVNATL. A.Classical-Futurist (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Television-related AfD discussions. A.Classical-Futurist (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Boxing, United Kingdom, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• delete The Broadcast Magazine is fine, but it's only one source. I tried in Gnewspapers; plenty of hits on the phrase, nothing for a TV show with this name. I don't see any other sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a soft deletion. Editors can request the article's undeletion for any reason. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Green Left (England and Wales)

Green Left (England and Wales) (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)

Party sub-group does not meet WP:GNG/WP:NORG. Reliant on primary and affiliated sources, lacks verifiability. Ighs (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: England and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:19, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
• Leaning towards Delete unless someone finds something compelling. The substance of the Wikipedia article relies on Green Left sources. The review of a Derek Wall book in Science and Society is only related to Green Left in no other way than Wall being a founder of GL. The Capitalism Nature Socialism article does not appear to be about Green Left either. I've had a thorough search online and can't see anything (news/book/magazine) specifically about Green Left. Sionk (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Anila Baig

Anila Baig (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. Writing articles for unreliable source like The Sun is not inherently notable. BookishReader (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep: In my opinion, the article could stand if the sources were improved. Anila Baig has been working as a journalist and a columnist for many years now having worked for such publications as Telegraph & Argus, Yorkshire Post and The Sun, and even received such an award as Press Gazette Regional Columnist of the Year award. But, at the same time, I do agree with the notion that the present article does contain too many sources related either directly or indirectly to her career. Alazar202 (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:20, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 16:21, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Phil Vickerman

Phil Vickerman (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 article was created because he was Jason Arday's supervisor. I am not seeing any indication that WP:PROF is met however - he is a senior member of staff at the university but that is not a valid criterion. SmartSE (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related AfD discussions. SmartSE (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. PVC is a senior position, but not enough to meet WP:PROF criterion 6. He's co-authored a Routledge book, but that's not really enough for WP:AUTHOR (not least as I can't immediately see any reviews). I confess I don't think we need this sort of 'notoriety by association' article, not least as Vickerman himself really hasn't been part of the Arday story. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NPROF C1. The nomination and the delete !vote both focus on C6 (correctly, it should be noted, as Pro-Vice-Chancellor isn't the top post) and on WP:AUTHOR, but neither tests citation impact, which is where I believe the case actually lies. A Google Scholar search shows a substantial and well-distributed citation record for the education field:
  • Hearing the voices of disabled students in higher education (Disability & Society, 2010) cited ~424
  • Student perspectives on formative peer assessment (Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2009) cited ~400
  • Let the children have their say: children with special educational needs and their expeSences of physical education (Support for Learning, 2008) cited ~237
  • Trainee and recently qualified physical education teachers' perspectives on including children with special educational needs (Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 2009) cited ~201
  • Teaching Physical Education to Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (Routledge, 2018) cited ~159

Several works cited in the 200-400+ range, two of them over 400, and he is lead or first author on most. For education/pedagogy (a field with lower citation counts than the sciences), that meets C1's "significant impact in their scholarly discipline". The article is poorly sourced at the moment, but that's fixable by normal editing and isn't a reason to delete in itself. For an academic, what counts is whether their research has had a real impact, and the citation figures above clearly show it has, regardless of the fact that the article was created only because he supervised Jason Arday. His own work stands on its own. Martinpri (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Martin; fair comment. I tried to check his citation numbers using Google Scholar before I commented above, but he doesn't have a scholar profile. Scopus gives him 692 citations and a h-index of 11, but Google Scholar would almost certainly give him higher. (For comparison: My GS citation count is just under double my Scopus count; my GS h-index is just under 1.5 times higher than my SCOPUS citation count.) Josh Milburn (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I also looked at google scholar before nominating but do not agree with your conclusion that C1 is met. As Josh points out, he has an h-index of 11 which is very low. A few highly cited papers does not make someone notable. SmartSE (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

C1 says "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work," which five highly cited papers fits. H-index and SCOPUS metrics aren't usually much use for scholars outside the sciences. I agree with Martinpri here. Furius (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

C1 does say that, but 'highly cited', which is emphasized, links to Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics, which opens with 'The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Science and Scopus.' Vickerman is a social scientist; as Joelle (and the linked guidelines) point out, SCOPUS is fine here. But I acknowledge there's surely room for disagreement whether 'five highly cited papers' means he's 'an author of highly cited academic work'; I think the guidelines are fairly vague here, meaning we need to make judgement calls. For what it's worth, Scopus says his five highest cited works have 161 citations ('Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: An attempt to deepen learning?', sole author), 151 citations ('Hearing the voices of disabled students in higher education', first author), 101 citations ('Let the children have their say: Children with special educational needs and their experiences of Physical Education - A review', second author), 58 citations ('Empowering children with special educational needs to speak up: Experiences of inclusive physical education', second author), and 42 citations ('Paralympic legacy: Exploring the impact of the games on the perceptions of young people with disabilities', second author). These numbers, unsurprisingly, are lower than the GS numbers. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete. GS is discouraged precisely because it inflates citations by including non-academic and predatory publishers. Scopus is fine for this subfield. JoelleJay (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep per WP:PROF, Criterion 1. The guy has been widely cited. XavierItzm (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep per WP:PROF, C1. Not massively notable but notability is binary and he is. Why this article was created is a good question - but it’s not relevant to this discussion. Springnuts (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete Not at all notable in his own right and does not meet WP:PROF. Some of the content might be suited to the article on Jason Arday. Graham Beards (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. We should get rid of h-index based notability pass. Its 2026 and we know citation counts are WP:GAMED widely. Google Scholar is totally unreliable. ~2026-44855-42 (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete- The fact he was Arday's supervisor seems the only reason the entry was made and, since the controversy surrounding the PhD and Arday's death, even this fact has been deleted. ~2026-44916-54 (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

The Times of London (founded 1785) says:
It also accepted that Arday’s supervisory team had been “depleted” after he said he received only one formal supervision during his PhD, and that all other contact with his director of studies, Phil Vickerman, was conducted via phone and text.
Emphasis added. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

'Supervisor' and 'director of studies' are different roles. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Right you are. I've updated the text.XavierItzm (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete- The fact he was Arday's supervisor seems the only reason the entry was made and, since the controversy surrounding the PhD and Arday's death, even this fact has been deleted. ~2026-44916-54 (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from anon user moved and repeat vote struck. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:PROF#C1 as above. Aspersions about motivation for article creation are irrelevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  The motivation is only to provide context. I'd appreciate if you could address my comment below about how the publication record meets C1 as your current !vote does not. SmartSE (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable academic who fails WP:PROF. Uhooep (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment This is evidently not as clear-cut as I envisaged. However, I note that C1 requires either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates - to reiterate my earlier comment, I do not see how five publications with > 100 citations (per GS) or two with > 100 (per SCOPUS), nearly all published within a few years of each other meets this criteria - clearly none are "extremely highly cited" and neither is five a "substantial number". SmartSE (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment I count 1421 citations in five papers alone. You say potatoe, I say potato. Also please observe Vickerman's book is on its second edition.
** 1st Edition Teaching Physical Education to Children with Special Educational Needs By Philip Vickerman Copyright 2007. Available at Routledge.
** Teaching Physical Education to Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities By Philip Vickerman, Anthony Maher Edition 2nd Edition First Published 2018. Available at Taylor and Francis.
XavierItzm (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, that is an unremarkable citation record. What does a book having a second edition have to do with determining notability? SmartSE (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Contrary to the assertion that Vickerman's books have not been reviewed, a quick search reveals that it has.
*** Educate (Peer reviewed, UCL, London) Vol. 10, No. 1, 2010, pp. 40-42 got a full review, 2.5 pages: «a solid text, well researched». Interestingly, the review is of the second book, and the review says the first edition was published in 2009. The editorial for the book was Sage Publishing.
Bottom line is that Vickerman has authored at least two books, one a solo (2007), and that his second book (2009) is on a second edition (2018). Cheerio,XavierItzm (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

If you could identify a few reviews for both, we'd have a good case that Vickerman meets the notability guidelines at WP:AUTHOR. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 11:21, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I can only find limited coverage, all in relation to Arday and the scandal. I don't see enough to show notability otherwise, I don't see a pass at PROF. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. C1 is not met. WP:NPROF points to Scopus, and the Scopus figures given above are neither "extremely highly cited" nor a "substantial number of publications with significant citation rates". The keep !votes assert C1 without addressing this. WP:AUTHOR is a better route, but one review of one book is not enough. Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Abu Khadeejah

Abu Khadeejah (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)

The article violates core content policies, most notably WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. The text is filled with controversial, unsourced claims and relies directly on the subject's own website in at least five instances as primary sourcing, rather than the required independent, secondary sources. Sakiv (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Islam, and United Kingdom. Sakiv (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

There a six sources not written by him sourcing incidents and background information about him, thus enough secondary sources. I did use primary sources for his beliefs/politics, but I did that because there not much information about that. I don't really see the need to delete it because he is notable in the Islamic community and mentioned in other Wikipedia articles like the As-Salafi Mosque one. GreenishAlien (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - 7 out of 12 sources are by the subject. There's not enough about the subject except for a brief flurry of news articles, which amounts to WP:BLP1E. Bearian (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom Monathephantom (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete Not enough independent coverage MasterRayvis (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Simon Johnston

Simon Johnston (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 BLP article is a single sentence long, with only two sources, both from the North Wales Post. I could not find any reliable sources for the article subject other than the links listed. Clearly a case of a non-notable subject improperly given its own article. I'd be open to a merge, but I don't think there's anything worth merging here. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 11:20, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, United Kingdom, and Wales. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 11:20, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Strength athletics in the United Kingdom and Ireland#Wales' Strongest Man – Where he is listed. Svartner (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  Seconding this proposal. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 16:54, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Passes GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  @WikiOriginal-9 All but one of these links comes from the same source, that being North Wales Live, a local-news operation associated with the Daily Mirror. The only other link is a mere six short sentences long and doesn't appear to establish notability. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 00:33, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 21:25, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

List of princely states of British India (alphabetical)

List of princely states of British India (alphabetical) (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)

List of princely states of British India already exists, so this is WP:DUP as a useless WP:FORK. The ctrl+f function already exists, and a table can be made on that page to arrange it alphabetically. Regardless, these types are not allowed because of WP:NOTDB|

A merge into the main list would be useless, there's nothing useful to merge HerrHeulsuse (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Lists, Asia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Oman, India, and United Kingdom. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Delete, clear duplicate. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom... Aqsis Bey (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Not surprisingly I would be opposed to this article being deleted, seeing as I created it in 2010.

I would dispute this page is either a simple duplication, or a "useless fork" of the (by region) page: It was spun off from there in 2010 via the Split process, after a discussion (of sorts), the reason being that page was hopelessly cluttered (viz). So merging them back together would just re-instate the problem. And I would dispute there is "nothing useful to merge"; The information on this page (flag, relative status, period of British rule) is different from the information there (resident/agency, last ruler, where it is now), so it isn’t simply a duplication. Also the (by region) page has over 20 separate tables in it, so it isn’t amenable to being sortable, whereas this page, as a simple alphabetical list, already is. I would also dispute the NOTDB tag; most pages can be seen as "an indiscriminate collection of data" to someone not interested in that subject: As someone interested in the history of India I can see a value in having this information in an accessible form.

The purpose of a list page is for information, navigation and development. The Princely states article says there were 584 of them, while this page has less than 300, all of which, as sovereign states, should have articles somewhere on them, so there is actually a need for expansion here, to make navigation easy and to indicate areas for further development.

Finally I am unclear why having this information on complementary pages in different formats, for ease of access and cross-referencing, (as stated in the original rationale) is automatically a bad thing. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not dispute that having a list of princely states of British India is something that is useful and should exist on Wikipedia. But it already exist at List of princely states of British India. There, it has more context, each individual entry has more detail, and generally, it is presented in a way that you would expect an encyclopedia to present it. This list on the other hand it more just the thing you'd find in a database HerrHeulsuse (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

By 'List of princely states of British India' I assume you mean List of princely states of British India (by region), where your term redirects to. And to answer your comment, the by region page looks to me like something you’d find in an encyclopaedic article (like here), whereas the alphabetical page looks like a list (like this, or this, or this, or even this). I would also note that WP:DUP is grounds for a merge, not for deletion, so maybe an article that has had over a thousand edits by dozens of contributors over the last 16 years shouldn't just be dumped: Maybe it’d make more sense, if a list of princely states would be useful, to merge both pages into something new, rather than trying to fiddle around with something that already exists. Thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I like how the by region page is divided by agency, it'll be more useful to the reader. I think merging the article is inappropriate, merging unsourced contents would go against WP:V. . There isn't much to merge anyway, only the 'reign' section is not in the by region page. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

If it comes to that, I like the layout there too, but as you have determined that there should only be one list page, I’m pointing out that the by regions page overlaps with the section at Princely states, and with all our lists of princely states by region/agency pages, and that List pages are generally sorted alphabetically (or chronologically). Your proposal seems to be to delete this page, which is alphabetical, then re-organize the by regions page so that its in alphabetical order (which is ludicrous). I can see that neither page is ideal; if you are serious about having something useful to the reader, a merged list page (arranged alphabetically and sortable, with detail on when it came under Brit suzerainty, the agency it belonged to, and which state it’s in now, maybe also salute status, area and population) would be better. (Something like this) Moonraker12 (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge – Both articles have some table parameters that would be useful, and attribution should be kept if we want to copy that. Best way to do this is to take the alphabetical table and expand it to have some parameters used by List of princely states of British India (by region). It doesn't really matter much technically in which article is the target, but it would be more like merging (by region) into (alphabetical). Neither of the articles are using inline citations right now (there's a whole 2 of them in the (by region) one) so I don't see how this would be some sort of WP:V disaster. For the record, I'd be willing to perform the merge. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 13:24, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Zoha Rahman

Zoha Rahman (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)

Rahman fails WP:NACTOR which states "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, notable television shows, stage performances, or other notable productions". The sources mainly cover her role in Spider-Man: Far From Home which was definitely not significant, she had about 2 small lines of dialogue. I also removed the false claim that Rahman was the first Muslim actor in a Marvel film. Sahaib (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Pakistan, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - She does have a strong set of sources - a profile in Al Jazeera English, which is cited in the article, an article in the Hindustan Times, which per WP:INTERVIEW is a valid article as it isn't in an interview format, and a bylined piece on her (also an article) in Morocco World News. I also think, just for the context of anyone who may want to improve the article, it should be edited to include these sources even though they're interviews - Teen Vogue, Gulf News, and The New Arab. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Praelector

Praelector (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)

Little more than a unsourced WP:DICDEF, and even the only link provided is essentially an (archived) primary source. ZimZalaBim^talk 04:02, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 04:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly acceptable article. Can probably be expanded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:56, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 12:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr vulpes (Talk) 18:37, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, regretfully, I have to disagree with Necrothesp here. There's simply not enough sourcing here, as such, it fails our (current) criteria for an article and has so for the last 21 years it existed. If the article was new I'd suggest draftification, but that's not an option here. As is, this should go to Wiktionary. LightlySeared (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Others

Proposed deletions

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

See also

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

England

Palatine School

Palatine School (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)

Likely fails WP:NSCHOOL / WP:GNG - can't find much coverage (per WP:BEFORE) beyond announcements from local papers/regulatory (dft/ofsted)/directory listings - therefore failing WP:SIGCOV. been flagged for WP:GNG as a top banner since 2015 with no changes Deveroonie (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Deveroonie (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Oak Grove College

Oak Grove College (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)

Likely fails WP:NSCHOOL / WP:GNG - can't find much coverage (per WP:BEFORE) beyond announcements from local papers/regulatory (dft/ofsted)/directory listings - therefore failing WP:SIGCOV Deveroonie (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Deveroonie (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

More Radio Mid-Sussex

More Radio Mid-Sussex (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 propose merging to Total_Sense_Media because the article seems overall thin; duplicates content from More Radio Hastings, More Radio Worthing, and More Radio Eastbourne - providing little independent value that wouldn't be better suited in one main article. Non-notable on it's own per WP:GNG Deveroonie (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Music, and Radio. Deveroonie (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

See Also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/More Radio Worthing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/More Radio Hastings, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/More Radio Eastbourne Deveroonie (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

More Radio Worthing

More Radio Worthing (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 propose merging to Total_Sense_Media because the article seems overall thin; duplicates content from More Radio Hastings, More Radio Mid-Sussex, and More Radio Mid-Sussex - providing little independent value that wouldn't be better suited in one main article. Non-notable on it's own per WP:GNG Deveroonie (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Music, and Radio. Deveroonie (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

See Also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/More Radio Mid-Sussex, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/More Radio Hastings, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/More Radio Eastbourne Deveroonie (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

More Radio Hastings

More Radio Hastings (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 propose merging to Total_Sense_Media because the article seems overall thin; duplicates content from More Radio Eastbourne, More Radio Worthing, and More Radio Mid-Sussex - providing little independent value that wouldn't be better suited in one main article. Non-notable on it's own per WP:GNG Deveroonie (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Music, and Radio. Deveroonie (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

See Also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/More Radio Worthing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/More Radio Mid-Sussex, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/More Radio Eastbourne Deveroonie (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

More Radio Eastbourne

More Radio Eastbourne (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 propose merging to Total_Sense_Media because the article seems overall thin; duplicates content from More Radio Hastings, More Radio Worthing, and More Radio Mid-Sussex - providing little independent value that wouldn't be better suited in one main article. Non-notable on it's own per WP:GNG Deveroonie (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Music, and Radio. Deveroonie (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

See Also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/More Radio Worthing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/More Radio Hastings, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/More Radio Mid-Sussex Deveroonie (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Iona McLeish

Iona McLeish (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 could find no reliable secondary sources to support notability. Lexiconaut (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, and Entertainment. Lexiconaut (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG after a WP:BEFORE search. She's participated in quite a few movies with articles but otherwise has no coverage of herself -- any article with about the subject would probably require significant WP:OR. Bungle491 (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Changing my !vote to draftify or keep and revert to the stub. Seeing BrechtBro's review, I think the article does have potential. However, I also worry that draftifying the article may just result in WP:G13 speedy deletion if no one works on the article. Bungle491 (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete As it is currently written, it does not appear to be a suitable BLP article. ~2026-45862-52 (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify. What a mess. I can't tell if there is anything notable here. I tried to do some clean-up, but still a huge mess. The reader cannot even tell what she designed. Was it always costumes, or sometimes sets? Or what? This was a simple and promising stub a week ago, and then someone came along and added all this barely cited stuff. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:15, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Draftify or weak keep Sources exist. Recent low quality additions to the article have been from an account with edits only to this article, these muddle the waters and perhaps the article should be reverted. Old versions make a clearer case for notability clearer, before the article was completely stubified (bad form imo, credits are often readily verifiable and are not contentious). There's 33 hits in the British Newspaper Archive covering her design work from the late 70s to early 90s in The Stage, and some more recent reviews in other papers available in a Google search. The Love of the Nightingale, for example, was reviewed in The Guardian, almost surely quite a few more reviews that cover her body of work in in other archives. I find the WP:NCREATIVE standard, which she may meet, difficult to apply to freelance stage designers.—BrechtBro (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Nom here. Having read the comments above and taken a look at previous versions I think that reverting it to the last version in 2022 () may be a solution. Definitely needs work and that version is poorly referenced, but it is cleaner than the version that existed when I submitted the AfD. IMO moving existing articles to draft space doesn't help much unless editors step up and commit to working on it. People are more likely to see it and improve it in main space than in draft space where articles go to die (remember the old incubator?!!). --Lexiconaut (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

List of UEFA Conference League top scorers

List of UEFA Conference League top scorers (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 fails WP:NLIST, should be instead redirected. Yavuz Ben (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Lists of people, Games, Sports, Football, Sport of athletics, Lists, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, Europe, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, England, and Brazil. Yavuz Ben (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:38, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to UEFA Conference League#All-time top scorers where it is already sufficiently covered. GiantSnowman 08:40, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  Redirect to UEFA Conference League#All-time top scorers, i completely agree. ~2026-43057-50 (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Reasonable Blackman

Reasonable Blackman (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)

As discussed on this blog post , the inference that this person was Black (the entire reason that they are considered notable to begin with) is entirely based on their surname, which cannot be used to confidently infer that he is Black. Given that his life is only known from a handful of brief mentions in administrative documents, there is little of significance to say about him regardless, and therefore they don't warrant a standalone article. If the article is to be kept, the title should probably be changed to "Reasonable Blackmore", which appears to be his actual name. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Africa, United Kingdom, and England. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Pinging talkpage commenters @Msalt:, @Captgouda24: @Nextrava:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Kaufmann's book devotes an entire chapter to this person and explains, explicitly, that "a surname alone cannot confirm a person's ethnicity". It is because he was described as 'blackmor' and 'a blackmore' ... "that we know he was African". The BBC History Magazine seems to be supportive. I can only see snippets of Salkeld so I can't assess that book. Any contrary reliably published evidence should be added to the article. There seem to be many other helpful sources available, including a book covering a UK GCSE history syllabus. I prefer these sources over speculation on the talk page or on a Substack blog. Thincat (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll just add that the blog makes a strong argument (I think) but on WP we go by sources published by reliable publishing houses, not blogs. Thincat (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

How in the hell is a GCSE history book a reliable source? BBC History is just repeating the claims made by Habib & Salkeld and Kaufmann and has nothing to add to the topic. The blog post goes into detail about how the claim that Reasonable is described as "a blackmor" is very tenuous at best and could easily be explained as a result of typographic error, reading error of the difficult to parse cursive handwriting, or variant spellings common in official documents during the Tudor period. I'm not arguing that there isn't WP:SIGCOV, there is, but that having a standalone article does not benefit the encyclopedia. He's already covered at Black_British_people#16th_century, which is about as much coverage is worth giving to him given the extremely limited knowledge of his life. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a unique case. I agree that the Substack article is persuasive, but it is also not usable for our purposes unless it is written up in a non-WP:SPS source. Per WP:WSAW, when sources are wrong the first (and perhaps best) option is to "quietly get it right". In this case, "quietly getting it right" might look like deleting the article, since the subject's entire case for WP:N (his perceived African ancestry) is questionable. Alternatively, if the article is kept, all claims about the subject's ancestry could be attributed rather than stating them in wikivoice. Astaire (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Stone Records

Stone Records (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)

Note: This formal merge proposal was incorrectly opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Stone Records § Merge proposal

 – FaviFake (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging Stone Records into Mark Stone (baritone). The subject lacks multiple, independent secondary sources discussing the label as a standalone enterprise (failing WP:NCORP). The existing citations consist primarily of individual album reviews and broken links, and the label served primarily as an outlet for the founder's own recordings. The relevant information is already summarized on Mark Stone's biography under the "Record producing" section. Clyerd (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge per WP:SHORTTEXT. Literally just a paragraph. FaviFake (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support merge, but with no prejudice toward re-creation. This started out as a vanity label, but it is building a roster and has received some media coverage that suggests it may need its own article in the future. Chubbles (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

2026 One-Day Cup final

2026 One-Day Cup final (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 propose redirecting because a single match with no WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTSEVENT. Vestrian24Bio 09:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and England. Vestrian24Bio 09:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Well as the match is scheduled to take place in a month's time, it is not surprising that there isn't much coverage yet, and it may be too early to say whether there will be sufficient coverage after the event has happened. Draftiftying the article until coverage starts to appear seems sensible.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Avakin Life

Avakin Life (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)

A BEFORE search turned up zero reviews from reputable websites. The one VentureBeat article isn't enough to support a WP:PERMASTUB. No SIGCOV, not notable. 11WB 💬 03:10, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Technology, and United Kingdom. 11WB 💬 03:10, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete There's no significant coverage. Not notable MasterRayvis (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - I was able to find some coverage, but only one review - a review from Common Sense Media, a TechRaptor article about concerns regarding the game marketing NFTs to children, brief GamesIndustry.biz article regarding player count, and a few articles from Pocket Gamer (Article about AI tool Avacraft, article about an in-game music festival event, "Top 7 Second Life-like games" listicle entry, "Best open world games for Android phones and tablets" listicle entry). Waxworker (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  The "review" on the Common Sense Media site isn't a review, it looks to be a WP:UGC page of some kind. The others are fine as supplemental references, but without actual reception, there isn't an article here. 11WB 💬 18:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  @11WB: - The review is credited to a staff reviewer, Amanda Bindel - the "Parents Need to Know", "What's It About?", and "Is It Any Good?" sections are their review, with the "Parent and Kid Reviews" section being the only user-generated content. Waxworker (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  The "Is it good?" section is all of 100 words. This is not enough on its own to satisfy SIGCOV, let alone an entire article. 11WB 💬 20:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and the WP:SIGCOV requirement. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete The coverage found is partially routine and as a whole still fails to describe the game in any satisfactory way. VRXCES (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hilary Cremin

Hilary Cremin (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 academic who fails WP:PROF. N.b. she was Jason Arday's former boss at Cambridge. Uhooep (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete:

The subject is clearly an established academic, but the current article does not demonstrate notability under

WP:PROF

or

WP:GNG

. The cited sources are primarily institutional pages from the University of Cambridge and related Cambridge organizations, which are primary sources and establish her positions and career but do not constitute significant independent coverage. Her academic appointments and publication record, including books published by Routledge, are not by themselves sufficient to establish notability

Alazar202 (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Clear Keep. Firstly her professorship is equivalent to a named/distinguished professorship, and is at a reasonably well-known university of decent quality, so she passes WP:NPROF on C5. We trust institutional pages for this sort of information on academics. Secondly, she passes as an author, or alternatively by C1-through-publication, based on her writings, such as "Rewilding Education" which as been reviewed independently. Less favourably, she's now getting in-depth coverage in reliable sources because of the recent controversy in Cambridge. Elemimele (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  "reasonably well-known university of decent quality": user page notes UK-based, British understatement, check. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. It's not clear to me whether "senior professor" is an official title at Cambridge that would be considered a step beyond ordinary full professor (as claimed above for #C5). Regardless, searching found six reviews of five books, enough for WP:AUTHOR: . —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think "senior professor" is being used here to mean grade 12 professor, or what used to just be called "professor" before the 2021/2022 change at Cambridge that changed the title of lecturers (grade 11) to also be "professor". It used to be that a "professor" at Cambridge was almost always notable, but I think now not, given that lecturers are now "professors" too. But in this case, as you note, WP:AUTHOR makes it moot. Jahaza (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  The grade 11 ones are probably mostly notable too, but through other criteria rather than #C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd expect any professors at Cambridge to be notable. In this case, per David Eppstein, there's a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR before we even consider any other criteria. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Non-metropolitan district

Non-metropolitan district (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 propose merging this article, Metropolitan borough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Unitary authorities of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) into Districts of England. These articles which are all about specific types of district have a lot of overlap in scope with the main Districts of England article with a lot of information duplicated between them, and I think it would be significantly more readable if it was all reported in one article. I have a demonstration of what such a merged article could look like in my sandbox: User:Chessrat/sandbox. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and England. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - On the surface this makes sense, but I notice that there doesn't seem to have been any discussion on the article talk pages before this proposal here? That would've let people familiar with the topic hash out ideas.

—DIYeditor (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment Chessrat raised it at Wikiproject UK Geography talk page. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@DIYeditor Editors are supposed to hash out ideas during merge discussions. FaviFake (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose and remove the info about unitaries, once this is removed there isn't that much overlap just like we have Non-metropolitan county, this article should deal with NMDs that aren't unitaries. Metropolitan boroughs are different just like the former Metropolitan boroughs of the County of London. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  Interesting proposal but I'm not sure how that would work when all non-metropolitan districts will be unitary authorities from 2028? If you end up removing all that information wouldn't it effectively just be a merger by another name? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 20:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  The longstanding scope for the Non-metropolitan district article has been to exclude unitaries so you adding them to it has given the impression of duplication. From 2028 this article should them be from a historical prospect just like Districts of Wales is even though the current principal areas are also districts. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know enough about Wales to say there, but I'm pretty sure that's incorrect for England.

  As far as I can tell, when English districts have become unitary upon the abolition of the counties, they are still classified as local authority districts, irrespective of metropolitan/non-metropolitan status (e.g. both Wokingham and Wakefield are categorised as local government districts) and also irrespective of borough/city status. Unless I'm missing something here? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm talking about those that haven't or won't become unitaries, Wokingham was a two-tier non-metropolitan district but became a unitary (without legally being a county) and Wakefield was a two-tier metropolitan district that gained county functions but also isn't legally a county. Mid Suffolk for example is a two-tier non-metropolitan district that is planned to be abolished in 2028. All of these are districts of England but they are different types, as you can see from Districts of England there are 5 types, unitary authorities (except in Berkshire these are non-metropolitan districts that are also non-metropolitan counties or vice versa), London boroughs which until 1986 operated below Greater London Council, metropolitan districts which until 1986 operated below a county council, two-tier non-metropolitan districts and 2 sui generis ones. If I wanted information on say the non-metropolitan districts or the metropolitan districts I'd expect to find a separate article with a list of them rather than being redirected to Districts of England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  When there is a large amount of distinct content that needs its own article and can't be covered elsewhere you do need a separate article (e.g. London boroughs can't really be merged). But all districts in general have exactly the same powers (except for the non-unitary ones being abolished soon) and I'm not really sure how it benefits readers to have to navigate to a new article to find out about metropolitan/non-metropolitan status when that doesn't take much explaining to do. It would be like having two separate articles listing the Borough Constituencies and County Constituencies for Parliament. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

John McCalla-Leacy

John McCalla-Leacy (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:BIO. Despite the fact there are many citations they do not provide significant independent coverage of the subject. Main problems: Routine appointment announcements WP:ROUTINE) like Bloomberg Tax, ESG Today and ESG News each report that he took up or was dismissed of ESG role. Trade-press "X appointed to Y" references are true routine business coverage and are churnalism.

Lists, awards, extra details throughtout the article are higly promotional. Jørgen Rü (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC) —  Blocked sockpuppet.

Nomination by blocked sock struck. Sandstein 10:59, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – Just personal WP:PROMO. Svartner (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:PROMO, failure to meet criterias of WP:CREATIVE, failure to pass WP:NSPORT, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Unclear how he is notable as a businessman when he's actually only one of many KPMG executive board officials, as well as how he is notable as a sportsperson when the article does not even specify specific competitions and/or awards he has won. Most references in the article are either trivial mentions of the subject or businesspeople directories like this which are neither independent nor considered reliable. While Financial News Top 50 ranking may sometimes be useful in proving potential notability when other basic GNG requirements are met, it is not the case in this situation. I see no option other than deletion. Jean Mélenchon (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as "delete", but am reopening and relisting it after the nominator was identified as a sock who has now been blocked. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 August 19.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Nomination cannot be speedily kept per WP:SK4. FaviFake (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

List of English hills by isolation

List of English hills by isolation (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 a notable subject apparently, and only sourced to one database of disputed reliability, and even then seems to be WP:SYNTH (checking hill by hill and hoping you don't miss any). "English hills by isolation" doesn't seem to be a topic of interest. Fram (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and England. Fram (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There doesn't appear to be a single source directly discussing this topic. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Reading through the RSN discussion about peakbagger.com (link) I am queasy about this source. As well, it only covers a few of the entries. The article appears to be all WP:OR or at best WP:SYNTH, with a search for sources mentioning this particular topic turning up empty. An OS page I found (link) doesn't mention this classification in their list of groupings of English hills. The author in an edit summary mentions List of the most isolated major summits of the United States as a counterpoint to its deletion. While noting that this of course falls under WP:OSE, that page is also rather inadequate in quality (particularly with sources) and focuses on the much more famous scope of mountains rather than hills. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:03, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Largely WP:OR. Wareon (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete for OR bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 06:13, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Georgia Davies (musician)

Georgia Davies (musician) (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 don't think this article fails WP:GNG WP:BANDMEMBER, and WP:SIGCOV. Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Bundled nomination for redirection and draftification (not deletion) to The Last Dinner Party:

• Lizzie Mayland - Due to their solo work, Mayland's individual page may not meet the threshold for deletion ThatAltair (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Abigail Morris (musician)
• Emily Roberts

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, England, and Australia. Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Emily Roberts, based on the article which shows notability independent of the group. Neutral on the others. --Northernhenge (talk) 08:33, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Cat Allman

Cat Allman (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)

Nothing at WP:GNG for her... What am I missing? The article is 8 years old. 🪙 Silvymaro 🌏 22:21, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Technology, Software, United Kingdom, and England. 🪙 Silvymaro 🌏 22:21, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. There is no SIGCOV. Khalitate (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete: This article does not presently satisfy WP: GNG. Most of the sources used are either primary or affiliated sources which have helped prove her employment and participation in several open-source projects but offer very limited to almost non-existent independent coverage on Allman. Alazar202 (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

N. E. J. Stevenson

N. E. J. Stevenson (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)

The article does not pass notability after searching for addtional sources. Does not have significant coverage. The article is currently in a promotional tone. MasterRayvis (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related AfD discussions. MasterRayvis (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete: I concur, article is written in a promotional tone, with inadequate sourcing (one removed link and one TV programme) and not in encyclopedic tone. I also note it has WP:COPYVIO, with at least one paragraph almost identical to one on the company website, per Earwig. DrThneed (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Doesn't make NCORP. Khalitate (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep I reverted the article to before the promotional content that was added . I was able to find some sources including a 1994 in The Independent and the ITV documentary, By Royal Appointment (2012), and the company made chairs for King Charles' coronation . There also are plenty of sources available in The British Newspaper Archive, which we can access via WP:TWL. Aude (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Alexandra P. Davis

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Alexandra P. Davis
• Articles for deletion/Alexandra P. Davis (2nd nomination)

Alexandra P. Davis (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 propose deleting this article because there is insufficient significant independent coverage to establish notability. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 11:31, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 11:31, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete: it's a biography of a minor politician based largely on her own campaign & office pages with minimal independent sources for notability consisting of a few mentions in niche periodicals (the only major source cited, the Jamaica Gleaner, is unverifiable, a dead link).

I have already cleared out some of the most obviously unencyclopedic content. To see what it looked like before I pruned it read version 1369982171 of 18 August, 11:31.

UrielAcosta (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: the impression I get from the first nomination from 2025 (which ended in deletion) is that this is probably the same subject as last time (but presumably with different content and thus not eligible for G4.) No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: England and Jamaica. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Ian Dunbar

Ian Dunbar (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)

Lack of notability. Most sources are self published. TheLongTone (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Animal, Medicine, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - Significant independent coverage exists here. One, SFGATE, is cited. I also find WGN Radio, LA Times, Psychology Today, and Dog Time, as well as newspaper sources like November 5, 2006 Salina Journal (the most misunderstood dogs in america). I could also see a NAUTHOR pass here: Barking Up The Right Tree was reviewed by Library Journal and K9 Magazine and AFTER You Get Your Puppy was cited as a key book to read for dog owners by OSU and reviewed/recommended by the Dover Library (see Dover Community News (August 5, 2005) in Newspaper Archive) and potentially more offline sources which I don't have access to. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: England and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Admittedly the article is a mess. However, I can easily find a dozen or more newspaper and magazine articles about him and his books. I expect to find reviews of his books since they have sold well. I will try to get this article into decent shape in the next few days. Lamona (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Malcolm Grimston

Malcolm Grimston (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)

Marked this as needing additional sources for verification/notability back in February, since then a couple of TAs/SPA have added info but still no improvement in terms of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Does not pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPOL. Orange sticker (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science, United Kingdom, and England. Orange sticker (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Politicians. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

George Abbott (footballer, born January 2005)

George Abbott (footballer, born January 2005) (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 fully professional appearances. He is only 21, so perhaps a TOOSOON candidate? Haz215 (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment is I liga not professional? OGLV (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per the 14 appearances in Poland. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

The I liga is professional but WP:NFOOTY got deprecated a while back so, if we're being consistent, Abbott would still need to meet WP:GNG to have an article, even with the pro games under his belt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - nomination is flawed, appearances have zero relevance - what matters for notability is WP:SIGCOV. However, there no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:52, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Finn Adams

Finn Adams (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 notability; only one confirmed fully-professional appearance. He is only 20, so possibly a TOOSOON? Haz215 (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - nomination is flawed, appearances have zero relevance - what matters for notability is WP:SIGCOV. However, there no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:52, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Benjy Aghadiuno

Benjy Aghadiuno (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 notability; only one confirmed fully professional appearance. Haz215 (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - nomination is flawed, appearances have zero relevance - what matters for notability is WP:SIGCOV. However, there no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:52, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Harry Agombar

Harry Agombar (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)

Possibly not sufficiently notable - three confirmed fully-professional appearances and then coached a third-division UAE side. Haz215 (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - nomination is flawed, appearances have zero relevance - what matters for notability is WP:SIGCOV. However, there no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:52, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Rio Alderton

Rio Alderton (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)

Possibly fails notability - only two professional appearances, 20 years ago. Haz215 (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:37, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• KEEP - passes WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE notability guidelines. --Jimbo^[online] 22:02, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  Where is GNG? ATHLETE does not apply. GiantSnowman 18:51, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - nomination is flawed, appearances have zero relevance - what matters for notability is WP:SIGCOV. However, there no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:52, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Caleb Richards

Caleb Richards (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)

Possibly fails notability - very few confirmed fully-professional appearances, possibly only one. Haz215 (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep I believe his 35+ appearances for Tampa Bay Rowdies in the USL Championship, which is a tier 2 league in the US and deemed to be fully professional would assist meet the notability criteria. Probably needs more sources around this part of his career though. Zanoni (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't sure USL Championship counted, but yeah, he does meet it if so. Definitely a lack of SIGCOV from that period, though. Haz215 (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't sure USL Championship counted "Counted" towards what? We don't have appearance-based notability criteria for association footballers. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Robby. That's not what I've seen elsewhere, or been told (in pretty sharp language) by multiple other members of the relevant WikiProject including admins. Consensus has been lockstep - a professional appearance in a 'fully professional' league will usually, but not always, confer notability if combined with appropriate SIGCOV. I trust your judgment and experience on this, but it would be good to get some clarity as I'm being told contradictory things. Haz215 (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The player-specific notability guideline based on professional appearances at WP:NFOOTY was deprecated a few years ago so at this point the WP:GNG apply and SIGCOV is decisive.

My experience and that of others is that players with hundreds of top-tier appearances usually have SIGCOV. But that needs to be demonstrated. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

You know what, I think this was an inappropriate nomination, so I think the right thing to is to Withdraw. Apologies for wasting anyone's time, nom was made in all good faith. Haz215 (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The nomination looks fine to me, assuming you checked for SIGCOV per WP:BEFORE? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - nomination is flawed, appearances have zero relevance - what matters for notability is WP:SIGCOV. However, there no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:53, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Jack Wignall

Jack Wignall (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)

Possibly fails notability - only one confirmed fully professional appearance. Haz215 (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:37, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - nomination is flawed, appearances have zero relevance - what matters for notability is WP:SIGCOV. However, there no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:51, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Dylan Williams (footballer, born 1997)

Dylan Williams (footballer, born 1997) (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)

Possibly lacks notability - only one confirmd professional appearance. Haz215 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - nomination is flawed, appearances have zero relevance - what matters for notability is WP:SIGCOV. However, there no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:51, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Tom Webb

Tom Webb (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)

Possibly lacks notability; one appearance at fully professional level. Haz215 (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - nomination is flawed, appearances have zero relevance - what matters for notability is WP:SIGCOV. However, there no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:51, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Bradley Thomas (footballer)

Bradley Thomas (footballer) (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)

Lacks notability - few confirmed professional appearances. Haz215 (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - nomination is flawed, appearances have zero relevance - what matters for notability is WP:SIGCOV. However, there no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Marcel Lewis

Marcel Lewis (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)

Lacks notability - five confirmed professional appearances to date, though he is still active, albeit at a lower level so unlikely to make many more. Haz215 (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - nomination is flawed, appearances have zero relevance - what matters for notability is WP:SIGCOV. However, there no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Curtis Haynes-Brown

Curtis Haynes-Brown (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 notability criteria - few known appearances at fully professonal level (Cambridge United were in non-league at the time). Haz215 (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep Played in the Football League for Yeovil Town and AFC Wimbledon between 2011 and 2013. Ytfc23 (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

100% irrelevant. GiantSnowman 18:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - nomination is flawed, appearances have zero relevance - what matters for notability is WP:SIGCOV. However, there no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Ross Crane

Ross Crane (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)

Lack of SIGCOV and notability; very few if any confirmed appearances at fully professional level. Haz215 (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - nomination is flawed, appearances have zero relevance - what matters for notability is WP:SIGCOV. However, there no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:49, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Sam Corcoran

Sam Corcoran (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 notability criteria; only one known appearance at fully professional level. Haz215 (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - nomination is flawed, appearances have zero relevance - what matters for notability is WP:SIGCOV. However, there no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:49, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Daniel Charge

Daniel Charge (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 appearances in a fully professional league, fails to meet notability criteria. Haz215 (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - nomination is flawed, appearances have zero relevance - what matters for notability is WP:SIGCOV. However, there no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:49, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Ryan Auger

Ryan Auger (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 possibly fails notability criteria - only one appearance in a fully professional league; has not played for a decade. See Billy Cracknell deletion discussion for a similar case. Haz215 (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - nomination is flawed, appearances have zero relevance - what matters for notability is WP:SIGCOV. However, there no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:49, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Steve Gore

Steve Gore (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 BLP of a magician, and added a reference. Coverage is local, however, and I do not think he meets WP:GNG or WP:NENTERTAINER. Article has been tagged with possible notability issue since 2022. Tacyarg (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Magic, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete. I take an interest in stage magic and the community around it, and Gore is well-respected in those circles, but his listed achievements are those of many high-level magicians and don't in themselves confer special notability. Haz215 (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

2026 The Hundred Men's final

2026 The Hundred Men's final (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)

Individual matches generally do not meet standalone notability guidelines under WP:GNG unless they possess exceptional, long-term historic significance beyond routine match coverage. The detailed outcome of this final can easily be integrated into the main tournament page without losing necessary context, avoiding unnecessary article bloat.  ** Godknowme1 ** :: talk  16:01, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and England.  ** Godknowme1 ** :: talk  16:01, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT. Vestrian24Bio 09:03, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

2026 The Hundred Women's final

2026 The Hundred Women's final (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)

Individual matches generally do not meet standalone notability guidelines under WP:GNG unless they possess exceptional, long-term historic significance beyond routine match coverage. The detailed outcome of this final can easily be integrated into the main tournament page without losing necessary context, avoiding unnecessary article bloat.  ** Godknowme1 ** :: talk  16:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and England.  ** Godknowme1 ** :: talk  16:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT. Vestrian24Bio 09:05, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
• I attended this match. It felt notable when I was watching a trophy being lifted at the end. ~2026-45875-46 (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Anila Baig

Anila Baig (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. Writing articles for unreliable source like The Sun is not inherently notable. BookishReader (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep: In my opinion, the article could stand if the sources were improved. Anila Baig has been working as a journalist and a columnist for many years now having worked for such publications as Telegraph & Argus, Yorkshire Post and The Sun, and even received such an award as Press Gazette Regional Columnist of the Year award. But, at the same time, I do agree with the notion that the present article does contain too many sources related either directly or indirectly to her career. Alazar202 (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:20, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 16:21, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a soft deletion. Editors can request the article's undeletion for any reason. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Green Left (England and Wales)

Green Left (England and Wales) (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)

Party sub-group does not meet WP:GNG/WP:NORG. Reliant on primary and affiliated sources, lacks verifiability. Ighs (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: England and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:19, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
• Leaning towards Delete unless someone finds something compelling. The substance of the Wikipedia article relies on Green Left sources. The review of a Derek Wall book in Science and Society is only related to Green Left in no other way than Wall being a founder of GL. The Capitalism Nature Socialism article does not appear to be about Green Left either. I've had a thorough search online and can't see anything (news/book/magazine) specifically about Green Left. Sionk (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Phil Vickerman

Phil Vickerman (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 article was created because he was Jason Arday's supervisor. I am not seeing any indication that WP:PROF is met however - he is a senior member of staff at the university but that is not a valid criterion. SmartSE (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related AfD discussions. SmartSE (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. PVC is a senior position, but not enough to meet WP:PROF criterion 6. He's co-authored a Routledge book, but that's not really enough for WP:AUTHOR (not least as I can't immediately see any reviews). I confess I don't think we need this sort of 'notoriety by association' article, not least as Vickerman himself really hasn't been part of the Arday story. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NPROF C1. The nomination and the delete !vote both focus on C6 (correctly, it should be noted, as Pro-Vice-Chancellor isn't the top post) and on WP:AUTHOR, but neither tests citation impact, which is where I believe the case actually lies. A Google Scholar search shows a substantial and well-distributed citation record for the education field:
  • Hearing the voices of disabled students in higher education (Disability & Society, 2010) cited ~424
  • Student perspectives on formative peer assessment (Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2009) cited ~400
  • Let the children have their say: children with special educational needs and their expeSences of physical education (Support for Learning, 2008) cited ~237
  • Trainee and recently qualified physical education teachers' perspectives on including children with special educational needs (Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 2009) cited ~201
  • Teaching Physical Education to Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (Routledge, 2018) cited ~159

Several works cited in the 200-400+ range, two of them over 400, and he is lead or first author on most. For education/pedagogy (a field with lower citation counts than the sciences), that meets C1's "significant impact in their scholarly discipline". The article is poorly sourced at the moment, but that's fixable by normal editing and isn't a reason to delete in itself. For an academic, what counts is whether their research has had a real impact, and the citation figures above clearly show it has, regardless of the fact that the article was created only because he supervised Jason Arday. His own work stands on its own. Martinpri (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Martin; fair comment. I tried to check his citation numbers using Google Scholar before I commented above, but he doesn't have a scholar profile. Scopus gives him 692 citations and a h-index of 11, but Google Scholar would almost certainly give him higher. (For comparison: My GS citation count is just under double my Scopus count; my GS h-index is just under 1.5 times higher than my SCOPUS citation count.) Josh Milburn (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I also looked at google scholar before nominating but do not agree with your conclusion that C1 is met. As Josh points out, he has an h-index of 11 which is very low. A few highly cited papers does not make someone notable. SmartSE (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

C1 says "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work," which five highly cited papers fits. H-index and SCOPUS metrics aren't usually much use for scholars outside the sciences. I agree with Martinpri here. Furius (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

C1 does say that, but 'highly cited', which is emphasized, links to Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics, which opens with 'The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Science and Scopus.' Vickerman is a social scientist; as Joelle (and the linked guidelines) point out, SCOPUS is fine here. But I acknowledge there's surely room for disagreement whether 'five highly cited papers' means he's 'an author of highly cited academic work'; I think the guidelines are fairly vague here, meaning we need to make judgement calls. For what it's worth, Scopus says his five highest cited works have 161 citations ('Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: An attempt to deepen learning?', sole author), 151 citations ('Hearing the voices of disabled students in higher education', first author), 101 citations ('Let the children have their say: Children with special educational needs and their experiences of Physical Education - A review', second author), 58 citations ('Empowering children with special educational needs to speak up: Experiences of inclusive physical education', second author), and 42 citations ('Paralympic legacy: Exploring the impact of the games on the perceptions of young people with disabilities', second author). These numbers, unsurprisingly, are lower than the GS numbers. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete. GS is discouraged precisely because it inflates citations by including non-academic and predatory publishers. Scopus is fine for this subfield. JoelleJay (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep per WP:PROF, Criterion 1. The guy has been widely cited. XavierItzm (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep per WP:PROF, C1. Not massively notable but notability is binary and he is. Why this article was created is a good question - but it’s not relevant to this discussion. Springnuts (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete Not at all notable in his own right and does not meet WP:PROF. Some of the content might be suited to the article on Jason Arday. Graham Beards (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. We should get rid of h-index based notability pass. Its 2026 and we know citation counts are WP:GAMED widely. Google Scholar is totally unreliable. ~2026-44855-42 (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete- The fact he was Arday's supervisor seems the only reason the entry was made and, since the controversy surrounding the PhD and Arday's death, even this fact has been deleted. ~2026-44916-54 (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

The Times of London (founded 1785) says:
It also accepted that Arday’s supervisory team had been “depleted” after he said he received only one formal supervision during his PhD, and that all other contact with his director of studies, Phil Vickerman, was conducted via phone and text.
Emphasis added. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

'Supervisor' and 'director of studies' are different roles. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Right you are. I've updated the text.XavierItzm (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete- The fact he was Arday's supervisor seems the only reason the entry was made and, since the controversy surrounding the PhD and Arday's death, even this fact has been deleted. ~2026-44916-54 (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments from anon user moved and repeat vote struck. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:PROF#C1 as above. Aspersions about motivation for article creation are irrelevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  The motivation is only to provide context. I'd appreciate if you could address my comment below about how the publication record meets C1 as your current !vote does not. SmartSE (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable academic who fails WP:PROF. Uhooep (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment This is evidently not as clear-cut as I envisaged. However, I note that C1 requires either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates - to reiterate my earlier comment, I do not see how five publications with > 100 citations (per GS) or two with > 100 (per SCOPUS), nearly all published within a few years of each other meets this criteria - clearly none are "extremely highly cited" and neither is five a "substantial number". SmartSE (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment I count 1421 citations in five papers alone. You say potatoe, I say potato. Also please observe Vickerman's book is on its second edition.
** 1st Edition Teaching Physical Education to Children with Special Educational Needs By Philip Vickerman Copyright 2007. Available at Routledge.
** Teaching Physical Education to Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities By Philip Vickerman, Anthony Maher Edition 2nd Edition First Published 2018. Available at Taylor and Francis.
XavierItzm (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, that is an unremarkable citation record. What does a book having a second edition have to do with determining notability? SmartSE (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Contrary to the assertion that Vickerman's books have not been reviewed, a quick search reveals that it has.
*** Educate (Peer reviewed, UCL, London) Vol. 10, No. 1, 2010, pp. 40-42 got a full review, 2.5 pages: «a solid text, well researched». Interestingly, the review is of the second book, and the review says the first edition was published in 2009. The editorial for the book was Sage Publishing.
Bottom line is that Vickerman has authored at least two books, one a solo (2007), and that his second book (2009) is on a second edition (2018). Cheerio,XavierItzm (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

If you could identify a few reviews for both, we'd have a good case that Vickerman meets the notability guidelines at WP:AUTHOR. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 11:21, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I can only find limited coverage, all in relation to Arday and the scandal. I don't see enough to show notability otherwise, I don't see a pass at PROF. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. C1 is not met. WP:NPROF points to Scopus, and the Scopus figures given above are neither "extremely highly cited" nor a "substantial number of publications with significant citation rates". The keep !votes assert C1 without addressing this. WP:AUTHOR is a better route, but one review of one book is not enough. Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Praelector

Praelector (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)

Little more than a unsourced WP:DICDEF, and even the only link provided is essentially an (archived) primary source. ZimZalaBim^talk 04:02, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 04:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly acceptable article. Can probably be expanded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:56, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 12:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr vulpes (Talk) 18:37, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, regretfully, I have to disagree with Necrothesp here. There's simply not enough sourcing here, as such, it fails our (current) criteria for an article and has so for the last 21 years it existed. If the article was new I'd suggest draftification, but that's not an option here. As is, this should go to Wiktionary. LightlySeared (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Kenneth Baer

Kenneth Baer (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:NBIO. Has placed some op-eds, but is a mid-level political appointee and roving spokeman in U.S. politics. Provides cookie cutter quotes to news media on behalf of his clients. Lacks the WP:SIGCOV or impact to establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, Politics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, England, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I was doing a search for sources and discovered that we are two degrees of separation, which isn't surprising because I was a Democratic committee person for over a decade. Therefore as is my practice I won't "vote" on this matter, and will trust the process. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Bearian This isn’t close enough to be a COI in my opinion Longhornsg (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Tell that to the random new users who have flamed me over the years. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

*Weak Keep Profile seems notable, have few notable news sources too, yet i want more editors to cast theiur vote to make the clarity.Rainfixer (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• This is a passing mention in an op-ed from 20 years ago. The other WaPo source is a photo. The other sources are a marriage announcement and a geneology website. None of these are WP:RS that establish WP:NBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete sources are OPEDs and not used for proving notability HerrHeulsuse (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak Keep. While he may not meet WP:NJournalist, but the coverage generated by his published work shows enough depth to establish notability Brodska213 (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• weak keep More than a few reviews for the "Reinventing Democrats:" book, , , , although the book might be more notable than the author. A redirect to the book perhaps might suffice? Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  The book may be notable per WP:NBOOK, but the author isn't. So we could delete the author page and have one for the book. Longhornsg (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - He is notable per WP:NAUTHOR and I think in general as well. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as we haven't kept anyone as notable for one book. His book might meet notability criteria, but he fails WP:NAUTHOR as well as WP:NJOURNALIST. DylanMReed (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep: Subject appears to meet the third criterion of WP:AUTHOR due to cofounding and editing Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. The sourcing on that article is itself suspect, with one of the five sources being the journal's own about page and two being articles by Baer himself, but that's another discussion that needs to be had first. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 16:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cyrobyte (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Others

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

Northern Ireland

Armagh–Dublin Gaelic football rivalry

Armagh–Dublin Gaelic football rivalry (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)

Infrequent sports fixture doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NRIVALRY. Similar to recent AfD discussions (incl. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limerick–Offaly hurling rivalry, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donegal–Mayo Gaelic football rivalry, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galway–Kildare Gaelic football rivalry, etc) and as discussed in WP:NRIVALRY, individual sports rivalries are not presumed notable, and there would need to be evidence of significant coverage of the topic in its own right to warrant a standalone title. As it stands, while there is one single source which refers to prior meetings of these teams as a "rivalry", a single source isn't sufficient to demonstrate SIGCOV. (And even that source describes it as an "infrequent rivalry" and mainly seeks to add drama to what was then an impending fixture which the source describes as "just the sixth championship meeting between the counties" and having a "small sample size"...). A WP:BEFORE search (on rte.ie, Irish Times, Irish Independent, Irish Examiner, etc, etc) doesn't return any coverage discussing a specific "rivalry" between Dublin and Armagh. The body/text is mostly just a WP:NOTSTATS of the few scheduled matches between these sides.... Guliolopez (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Neutral. The rivalry is also discussed in this article in The Sideline Eye. That makes two solid sources with the RTE. It is alluded to here. There's enough coverage to make me not advocate for deleting the page, but not such a large amount that it is in the solid keep category. If we find one more solid source I would say this passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  Comment. The Garry Doyle piece in the Irish Mirror doesn't refer to Armagh and Dublin as "rivals". While the term "rising rivals" is used, in the body it is clear that the "rising rivals" are "Dublin's Leinster rivals, Meath" who "have [momentum]". Yes, while Doyle is talking about an upcoming game between Dublin and Armagh, and referring to prior meetings between the sides, he doesn't describe it as part of a "rivalry". Guliolopez (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  Keep: Here's your third source: Another Irish Mirror article discussing the rivalry bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 19:52, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  Comment. While that Irish Mirror source is interesting (overlooked in my own WP:BEFORE perhaps as I generally avoid the Mirror Group Newspapers given RSP concerns), I note that even the interviewee (on whose quotes that tabloid article is primarily based) specifically states that there's "probably kind [two qualifying hedges?] of a healthy rivalry in many ways built up, not in competitive games, but off the field and different things [a third qualifying hedge?]". Where he appears to qualify/clarify that "different things" is the "relationship with Dessie [Farrell, Dublin manager] and Kieran [McGeeney, Armagh manager]". To me this implies he thinks that any rivalry is more of a personal rivalry between the two managers. Rather than a rivalry between the playing teams/counties. While the Thesidelineeye.com webpage/post is also interesting, that website is hyper-focused only on Gaelic games and only in County Armagh (In that very local/specific sense, maybe the rivalry is notable; But, at a WP:WORLDVIEW level, I don't think it is). In all honesty, three sources (one national news article, one tabloid news article and one local news webpage/blogpost) isn't what I would normally consider WP:SIGCOV. Certainly the existence of three webpages, which mention a term, wouldn't be sufficient to demonstrate SIGCOV/notability of other types of topics.) Anyway...... Guliolopez (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Six games between the two teams in 122 years is not what any realistic person could call a "rivalry", regardless of what some redtop tabloid says. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:56, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This is of course not a rivalry. Certain publications have a very low threshold for dropping that word. (Or even "alluding to" it!) But where is the history, the events, the tension - except for the normal excitement that can arise from any sports game? Geschichte (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. A notable rivalry should easily find multiple sources talking about it in detail: where did it originate, how has it shaped the two teams' interactions, etc. The given sources don't rise to that. M kuhner (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Trygve Ugland

Trygve Ugland (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:NPROF nor WP:NAUTHOR google search shows he exists but not to our notability standard Czarking0 (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Norway. Czarking0 (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. Please do a source analysis of the extant sources Geschichte (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Northern Ireland and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Looks like it's too soon. Once his second book is out he may attract reviews sufficient to meet WP:AUTHOR. Jahaza (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: ATD, if that's where this goes - create the article for Jean Monnet and Canada, which is clearly notable, then redirect the author's name to the book. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any support for moving this page to Jean Monnet and Canada: Early Travels and the Idea of European Unity, and refocusing the article on the book? (But please do not move the page until the AfD closes!)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:27, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Scotland

Gertrude H Lindsay

Gertrude H Lindsay (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 evidence of notability, no independent reliable indepth sources about her. The Croix de Guerre was awarded 2 million times during WWI, it seems. The other sources are primary sources or unreliable ones as far as I can check, and no better sources seem available. Fram (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, Military, Medicine, and Scotland. Fram (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

How many women received the Croix de Guerre for devotion under fire? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:31, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

No idea, why? Have these received more attention? Or is this subgroup not considered special by reliable sources? Fram (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Why? Because you seem to think "the Croix de Guerre was awarded 2 million times during WWI" is relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

The Croix de Guerre clearly isn't in itself a very exceptional award, most people who received it are not notable. "Devotion under fire" is one of the standard reasons why it was awarded. There were obviously a lot less women than men who received it, because there were a lot less women than men active at or near the front. You removed the ProD because "how many women got the Croix de Guerre for devotion under fire?" and repeated that question here, but haven't indicated why this would be a reason to keep the article. Fram (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete, unless additional independent, significant coverage can be demonstrated. Alazar202 (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• delete Non-notable individual; no book sources, nothing found in Gsearch, only an obituary for another person. I really don't see this as being notable, this reads like a short biography, nothing to show why this is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

David Spangler

David Spangler (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 seems like a puffed-up, self-promotional article about someone who fails GNG. I'm having a difficult time finding credible, independent sources to support significant coverage. Most of the available sources appear to be very close to the subject and his foundation. As an AtD, this could be redirected to Findhorn Foundation. PA Uploader (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Conspiracy theories, and Spirituality. PA Uploader (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – insufficient independent sourcing to establish notability. Unfortunately one of those 20-year-old articles which have slipped through community review. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 03:00, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: even if it took 20 years to come to AfD, it at least caught someone's radar enough to have been tagged as a potential NBIO failure since 2024. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:26, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Morocco, Scotland, Arizona, Massachusetts, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep
  • Spangler is extensively discussed in Wouter Hanegraaf's New Age Religion and Western Culture (two editions Brill, ISBN 90-04-10696-0, 1996 and SUNY, ISBN 9780791438541, 1997) on pages 38-39 and 104-105, as well as on pages 9, 193, 331, 359-360. Hanegraaf credits Spangler with popularizing the term "New Age" for the new age movement.
  • Encyclopedia Britannica, calls Spangler "the major architect of the [New Age] movement" in their article "New Age movement". This article is written by J. Gordon Melton, who before his retirement was Distinguished Professor of American Religious History at Baylor University.
  • Steven Sutcliffe discusses Spangler extensively in Children of the New Age: A History of Spiritual Practices (Routledge, 2003, ISBN 9780415242981).
  • Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology (Gale): "David Spangler, prominent architect and theoretician of the New Age movement..."
  • Spangler is cited as "an important exponent of New Age" in the Vatican document "Jesus Christ The Bearer of the Water of Life: A Christian reflection on the 'New Age'" published by the Pontifical Council for Culture and the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.
  • His book with W.I. Thompson Reimagination of the World: A Critique of the New Age, Science, and Popular Culture gets 188 words in the New York Times. It was also reviewed in Library Journal (EBSCOhost 9110072675).
  • His book A Pilgrim in Aquarius was reviewed in Utopian Studies (JSTOR 20718152).
  • His book Blessing was reviewed in Publisher's Weekly (EBSCOhost 4377634).
  • His book Apprenticed to the Spirit was reviewed in Booklist (EBSCOhost 64414875) in a review that describes him as "One of the earliest New Agers..."
  • His book Parent as Mystic, Mystic as Parent was reviewed in Library Journal (EBSCOhost 1447014), Publisher's Weekly (EBSCOhost 1441971, and Booklist (EBSCOhost 1527205).
  • His book The Call was reviewed in Library Journal (EBSCOhost 9611227897) and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune (ProQuest 426793451).
  • Newspapers: 1978 profile in the North Adams Transcript, coverage of a 1974 lecture in the Harrisonburg Daily News Jahaza (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related AfD discussions. 16:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC) Jahaza (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Jahaza. Passes GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Per Jehaza. Meet GNG and NAUTHOR. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Rachel Stewart

Rachel Stewart (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 are only two citations in the current version of this BLP about a musician. One is not independent, and the only mention of her in the other is The video for the single featured fourth member/mascot Arial Tetsuo, an anime figure represented in concerts by dancer Rachel Stewart. I have carried out WP:BEFORE, and added one reference, but it is also not significant coverage of her. I think the best outcome is probably redirect to Fluke (band). The other band she was in, Beauty School (band), does not have an article.

If searching for coverage, note that, per the Talk page and the article's lead, she is Rachael. Tacyarg (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Dance, and Scotland. Tacyarg (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested, and as reasonable in these circumstances. My only concern is that her name is also spelled Rachael. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:32, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

David Macleod Black

David Macleod Black (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)

Appears non-notable for BLP. I did a brief search but could find no significant sources outside of the poetry library. Do not believe notability threshold met for academic/author. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related AfD discussions. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, South Africa, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: yet to make a decision here, but the subject's works have been subject to at least ten reviews, which would meet one criterion for WP:NAUTHOR. Leaning towards a !vote pro-keep. Ighs (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. His collection Claiming Kindred was reviewed in the Guardian, Warwick Review and Acumen. His Purgatorio translation was reviewed in Prospect, The Financial Times the Los Angeles Review of Books, Plough, Australian Book Review, the International Journal of Psychoanalysis, London Magazine, the New Yorker, and the New York Review of Books. His Paradiso was reviewed in The Scotsman. His book Psychoanalysis and Ethics: The Necessity of Perspective was reviewed in Psychoanalytic Psychology and the British Journal of Psychotherapy. His collection The Arrow Maker was reviewed in the Times Literary Supplement. His Collected Poems was short listed for the Saltire/Scotsman Scottish Book of the Year and reviewed in Scottish Affairs and the Times Literary Supplement. His early work is discussed in Roderick Watson's article "Scottish Poetry: The Scene and the Sixties". Jahaza (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Keep, per above. Ighs (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: On one hand, one citation is not enough for a BLP. On the other hand, additional sources are available. Ping me when you add more to the article. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 11:22, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep per Jahaza's sources - fantastic finds, clear pass of NAUTHOR. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Many thanks to Jahaza for finding these sources. Subject clearly meet the criteria for authors. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:44, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Others

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Wales

Ieuan ab Owain Glyndŵr

Ieuan ab Owain Glyndŵr (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 see how this article meets the notability requirement of Wikipedia, seeing as its subject is a bastard son of Owain Glyndŵr whose only existence is as a name in genealogies. There is thus no reason to have Ieuan as a separate article instead of just a mention on his father's page. Tipcake (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 August 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:03, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

George Abbott (footballer, born January 2005)

George Abbott (footballer, born January 2005) (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 fully professional appearances. He is only 21, so perhaps a TOOSOON candidate? Haz215 (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment is I liga not professional? OGLV (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per the 14 appearances in Poland. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

The I liga is professional but WP:NFOOTY got deprecated a while back so, if we're being consistent, Abbott would still need to meet WP:GNG to have an article, even with the pro games under his belt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - nomination is flawed, appearances have zero relevance - what matters for notability is WP:SIGCOV. However, there no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:52, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a soft deletion. Editors can request the article's undeletion for any reason. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Green Left (England and Wales)

Green Left (England and Wales) (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)

Party sub-group does not meet WP:GNG/WP:NORG. Reliant on primary and affiliated sources, lacks verifiability. Ighs (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: England and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:19, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
• Leaning towards Delete unless someone finds something compelling. The substance of the Wikipedia article relies on Green Left sources. The review of a Derek Wall book in Science and Society is only related to Green Left in no other way than Wall being a founder of GL. The Capitalism Nature Socialism article does not appear to be about Green Left either. I've had a thorough search online and can't see anything (news/book/magazine) specifically about Green Left. Sionk (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Simon Johnston

Simon Johnston (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 BLP article is a single sentence long, with only two sources, both from the North Wales Post. I could not find any reliable sources for the article subject other than the links listed. Clearly a case of a non-notable subject improperly given its own article. I'd be open to a merge, but I don't think there's anything worth merging here. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 11:20, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, United Kingdom, and Wales. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 11:20, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Strength athletics in the United Kingdom and Ireland#Wales' Strongest Man – Where he is listed. Svartner (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  Seconding this proposal. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 16:54, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Passes GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  @WikiOriginal-9 All but one of these links comes from the same source, that being North Wales Live, a local-news operation associated with the Daily Mirror. The only other link is a mere six short sentences long and doesn't appear to establish notability. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 00:33, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 21:25, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Others

• Penystrywad (via WP:PROD on 31 March 2025)
• Morgan ap Pasgen (via WP:PROD on 31 March 2025)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)