Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

WP:DELSORT/ENGLANDWP:DELSORT/ENGLAND

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:English Wikipedians' notice board

Scan for England related AfDs

Scan for England related Prods
Scan for England related TfDs

England

Imperium Comms

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

Not yet notable per WP:CORP. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only press releases and passing mentions. They have some notable clients, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. The claim of pro bono work for an Emirati prince is a bit startling: pro bono, really? Is he strapped for cash this month? Hard times chez Qassimi? Wikishovel (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and England. Wikishovel (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not sure about the exact nature of it but the source mentioned it. might be some sort of emritization initative to support the UAE attract companies? Schumi19799 (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I did include several non press release sources related to this company and also the press gazette official ranking of the news site it owns. @Wikishovel: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schumi19799 (talk • contribs)

Delete, removing all the PR and SEO blackhat sources, there's almost nothing about the company. The "maybe they are the parent of this racing website" seems really odd. Sam Kuru (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified their ownership of the racing site now and added some more sources. this is only the second page ive made so im not entirely sure about the threshold... feedback is appreciated.

Those are all the sources I'm able to find so I wont be making more edits. Schumi19799 (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhill View Academy

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

As a secondary school the article needs to meet WP:NCORP and/or WP:GNG, which it doesn't. There is some news coverage that could meet SIGCOV, but one of the articles is from The Northern Echo and the other is from the Sunderland Echo, both local newspapers that therefore probably don't meet reliable/independent given their proximity to the subject (the Sunderland Echo, for example, also published this article about the school's prom night) Athanelar (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and United Kingdom. Athanelar (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it doesn’t seem notable enough and it only cites a singular source, unless the page can be worked on and fixed I believe then it would have to be deleted/moved to draftspace. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails in WP:NSCHOOL. Svartner (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Svendsen-Cook

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

Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMOTORSPORT. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A WP:BEFORE search only returns WP:ROUTINE coverage of this subject (1, 2, 3, etc.) from independent WP:RS. Somewhat surprising given the subject won British F3 Championship races. Given this is a WP:BLP the risks of libellous vandalism mean a higher standard is required to satisfy WP:GNG. I would guess Autocourse might also contain a couple more mentions, but that's still far from tipping the scales. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University College London Polo Club

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

Non notable student sports club Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Sports, and United Kingdom. Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Elliott (composer and arranger)

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

This is a WP:REFBOMB, with no WP:SIGCOV that I can discern. There are some quotes by or involving him in some of the sources, but all in the context of something else - just passing mentions. asilvering (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. asilvering (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Duffy (songwriter)

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

Created by an extensive, long-term WP:UPE/promo ring intent on promoting Josh Simons and things related to Josh Simons. We don't have WP:GNG here - just a WP:REFBOMB. asilvering (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United Kingdom. asilvering (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Once you remove discogs and muso.ai, you're left with a bunch of references that just say "Foosong was produced by Simon Duffy", and don't come close to providing WP:SIGCOV required for a standalone WP:BIO or WP:NCOMPOSER. Nil🥝 05:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Season (band)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United Kingdom, and England. toweli (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Written well enough, and I think it's worth investigating, but we need sources. When sources are found, we can put this in mainspace. Oxigalia ObtuseTriangle (talk)
Changed to delete. Language indicates being copy pasted of the band's page. (This is my first AfD. Sorry if my comments are garbage.)Oxigalia ObtuseTriangle (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC) 22:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable band and might have been written by someone with a COI. Cannot find any reliable sources, although the band's name is common (I have searched "season" along with band members to get around this on various platforms). On Discogs they have apparently only released two albums, and I can't find results for some of those outside of there. Do not draftify, as the original author has been inactive for 15 years and it's unlikely anyone without a COI will pick it up considering the lack of sourcing. HurricaneZeta^C 22:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable college band that falls short of WP:NBAND. A quick WP:BEFORE returns a separate UK band called Seasons that perform at weddings, but nothing for this group. Nil🥝 05:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found to demonstrate any prospect of meeting notability guidelines. ResonantDis_tortion 19:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 44

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

The article has 2 sources, a book named "The Story of the London Bus" that is not Significant coverage and a map from Transport for London which is a primary source and is used to source the route map. On a WP:BEFORE I couldn't find many sources to prove notability, [1] is the only source I can find that seems to pass all the GNG criterias, but that is just 1 source. DAmik001 (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. DAmik001 (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 17:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC) Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of bus routes in London. Not convinced yet there is notability. This appears to be a long standing route dating back to the 1950s, there is certainly enough history on fandom pages but most of these are not backed up by reliable, independent sources, and much of the content is just route changes over the years. Redirect until there is enough content and sourcing to guarantee notability. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soccerway

AfDs for this article:

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

I cannot find evidence of this website receiving any significant coverage from independent sources after searching for them, thus the topic does not pass WP:WEB. Some sources in the article discuss a recent merging of football websites that is related to this one, but they do not give significant coverage to the website itself or provide evidence of its notability. The other sources are simply a website that list domains, and a primary source. TheInevitables (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Websites. TheInevitables (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Soccerway is used as a valid source. Despite the downgrade, it would be strange to delete something so widely used in the project. Svartner (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD isn't about whether Soccerway is a reliable source, it's about whether there's significant coverage that would indicate the website is notable enough to have an article. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that would be quite inconsistent, that's the point. Svartner (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I don't see how. Again, reliability isn't the same as notability. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per previous AFD. Giant Snowman 20:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR, which is a more apt policy for deletion to me. Govvy (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thameslink Southern Great Northern

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

WP:TOOSOON, no WP:SIGCOV about this company yet, as there's not much really to be said about it. I don't know whether delete, redirect to Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise or DfT Operator is the best option though. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 20:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and United Kingdom. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 20:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the franchise makes the most sense to me, it's not clear this will even be needed once May 2026 comes around. SportingFlyer T·C 21:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the franchise for now as it is WP:TOOSOON to know what the actual operator will even be called come May 2026. There's nothing in the article actually about the future operator. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 15:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Obviously mention there as well at Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise. At this point it is simply WP:TOOSOON.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – I think the current page is more like a WP:DRAFT, I think we should reject the page back for now, until the operation works final transition.
Plus, I Oppose to Redirect to franchise or related pages, coz it's different between operator entity and franchise itself.

Awdqmb (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hertford Castle Weir

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced for 19 years, and tagged as such for 16 years. I tagged this for notability concerns 5 months ago, for lack of significant coverage, which is plenty of notice for any interested parties. This somehow survived the November unsourced articles drive. Bearian (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of SIGCOV to suggest its general notability even with additional searches.Lorraine Crane (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Sharp

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

Lack of notability. I'd redirect, but have doubts about The Pendragon Cycle: Rise of the Merlin, which sound like barely notsable tosh. TheLongTone (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Pendragon Cycle: Rise of the Merlin. Exclude the IMDb citation per WP:IMDB. We can discuss the notability of Rising Merlin at a later date. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep More notable article citations have been added and the Pendragon IMDB citation removed.
~2025-35856-82 (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Self published & run of the mill. TheLongTone (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's the lead actor / title role of a new multi-million dollar American tv series, based on multiple acclaimed novels by a notable author Stepehen R. Lawhead.

~2025-35856-82 (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Pendragon Cycle: Rise of the Merlin per EnvironmentalDoor. The actor is not independently notable at this point. I'd like to note that the two keep votes are by the same IP address, and possibly the one who created the author's article though I can't say that for sure- their only edits have been to these articles. TNstingray (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Found a new interview with the actor on the news regarding the show, I added the citation, his notability is clearly growing.
Elephants49 (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment by nominator I see that the IP editor who believes this actor is notable is also reverting sensible edits to the grossly promotional article on the low-budget TV series.TheLongTone (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And also note that Elephants49 only edits are to this topic.TheLongTone (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eke Chukwu

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

I can't see anything suggesting notability as we define it. Autobiography of actor playing minor parts and making his own non-notable films. Refs are junk like IMDB and the Express too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the Internet Movie Database and the Daily Express newspaper are junk. The IMDb is the world's most popular and authoritative source for movie, TV and celebrity content where you can find ratings and reviews for the newest movie and TV shows. The Daily Express is, according to Wikipedia: A national daily United Kingdom middle-market newspaper printed in tabloid format. Published in London, it is the flagship of Express Newspapers, owned by publisher Reach plc. It was first published as a broadsheet in 1900 by Sir Arthur Pearson. Its sister paper, the Sunday Express, was launched in 1918. In June 2022, it had an average daily circulation of 201,608. To call these reference sources 'Junk' appears to be disingenuous. Ekechukwu (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Imdb is junk to be frank, it's user contributed, so we can't trust anything that's published there. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ekechukwu, perhaps "junk" was a bit strong, but IMDB is not acceptable here because its entries can be self-created and self-edited, and the Express, along with the Mail and Sun are seen here as unreliable. The only UK papers viewed as good independent sources are the Guardian, the Times, the Telegraph, the FT and their Sunday equivalents. In any case, the issue is more about whether you meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) than the sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have removed the IMDb cites, as they are not acceptable to use as sources in the text, and I requested cites for the unreferenced assertions. Now it will be easier for people to evaluate the sources that do appear in the entry. Certainly this article should be trimmed of much of the trivia per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, Television, Theatre, Video games, Comics and animation, Advertising, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see anything about this person, some theatre reviews are posted, but they're more about the overall production, than about this person. Has had a long career, but appears non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources I could find were directory listings on IMDb, Tubi, Rotten Tomatoes, and similar websites listing works by this subject. A search of books and newspapers turned up nothing substantive. If the unsourced or poorly sourced material were removed, we would be left with just a list of appearances that doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of non-iMDb sources/significant coverage and article was created for promotional purposes. Go D. Usopp (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ekechukwu, You might not be aware of our concerns that poorly sourced articles are being used as an excuse by powerful critics to try to take away our charitable status. Bearian (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments raised above. DonBeroni (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMDb citations removed. Additional Sources provided. Has had a long career spanning over two decades in British theatre, film, and television with extensive work with major, highly regarded institutions such as the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC), the BBC and the National Theatre. User talk:Ekechukwu 23:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one disputes that he had a career as an actor. The question is whether it was a *notable* career. You should try to demonstrate that he meets the criteria at WP:NACTOR, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and/or WP:CREATIVE. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pixie Polite

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

Fails WP:NENTERTAINER, has so far been a participant in one series of a reality TV series, no WP:SIGCOV outside of that, so WP:SINGLEEVENT, WP:BLP1E and WP:PSEUDO also applies. --wooden superman 11:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --wooden superman 11:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject passes WP:GNG and WP:NENTERTAINER based on significant, independent coverage spanning a decade (2015–2025). The nomination relies on the claim that the subject is only notable for "one reality TV series" (WP:SINGLEEVENT/WP:BLP1E), which is factually incorrect given the timeline of coverage.

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

1. Rebuttal to WP:BLP1E, WP:SINGLEEVENT & WP:PSEUDO

The nominator argues the subject has no WP:SIGCOV outside of one show. This is refuted by the sources:

2015: Finalist in Drag Idol UK, a national competition (Career commencement).
2022: 5th Place on RuPaul's Drag Race UK (Series 4).
2025: Subject of significant international news coverage regarding a homophobic assault/hate crime (Sources: Out Magazine, PinkNews, Gay Community News).

Because the coverage involves distinct events spanning 2015–2025, WP:BLP1E and WP:SINGLEEVENT do not apply. WP:PSEUDO is also inapplicable as the coverage in 2025 is independent news reporting, not "promotional" or routine reality TV recaps.

2. Meets WP:NENTERTAINER & WP:CONSISTENCY

The subject placed 5th in a major national franchise. There is a strong project consensus that finalists (Top 5) in major Drag Race franchises generally meet WP:NENTERTAINER due to the volume of independent press generated by a "deep run."

Deleting this article while retaining dozens of articles for contestants with identical (or lower) placements and similar sourcing profiles would violate WP:CONSISTENCY.

I recommend keeping the article based on the strength of the 2025 sources (Out, PinkNews) which prove WP:SUSTAINED notability beyond the initial television appearance. Many thanks & take care. Lady carrie (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)— Lady carrie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Drag Idol is not notable, and is not, as far as I can see, covered by any sources. Neither this nor an assault could remotely be considered significant coverage, and therefore not sufficent to consider that they are known for any more than an appearance on a single television series. Note that it is not the position of the placing in the series that demonstrates notability. A contestant in a reality show could win, but still not be notable if they did nothing else. Regarding the articles on other contestants, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. --wooden superman 11:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Rebuttal to "Single Event" and "Notability" Claims:

1. Drag Idol Relevance: The objection misses the point of citing Drag Idol. We are not arguing that Drag Idol itself warrants a Wikipedia page, nor that Pixie is notable solely for this. We are citing it to establish a verified career timeline that began in 2015. This factual evidence disproves the claim that the subject is a "Single Event" (2022) personality. I am happy to use time to expand the subject's page, if it is not deleted, with further career and life information.

2. The 2025 Coverage WP:SUSTAINED: The objection that "an assault is not significant coverage" confuses the nature of the event with the significance of the sourcing. Independent, international outlets (Out Magazine, PinkNews) covering a specific personal event involving the subject three years after her television appearance is the definition of WP:SUSTAINED interest. If the subject were non-notable, this event would not have generated international press.

3. Placement & Consistency: Dismissing the 5th-place finish as WP:OTHERSTUFF ignores WP:CONSISTENCY. The consensus of the Drag Race project has long been that "Deep Run" contestants (Finalists) garner enough sustained coverage to merit inclusion. Deleting this article creates a double standard against similar retained articles. Lady carrie (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To meet WP:NENTERTAINER, the productions have to be notable. Being in a non-notable production carries no weight here. Being what you call a "deep run" contestant has no bearing, and it's not about what the Drag Race project think with regard to placing, as recent deletion discussions has proven. It's the notable things they've done outside of the series which count here. Which appears to be nothing. --wooden superman 12:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Refuting the claim of "Nothing outside the series":

The assertion that the subject has done "nothing" outside of Drag Race is factually incorrect. To meet WP:NENTERTAINER, one must have "significant roles in notable productions." The subject meets this criteria through work entirely independent of the reality series:

Notable Production (2022): Featured soloist with the BBC Concert Orchestra at the Royal Albert Hall for the production A Christmas Gaiety. This was a major, reviewed production at one of the world's most notable venues, distinct from the TV series. It was reviewed by Broadway World and Attitude, confirming it as a significant credit. ^[1] ^[2]
Notable Campaign (2025): Selected as the face of the Thameslink "See it, Slay it, Sorted!" national marketing campaign (June 2025). This is a significant commercial endorsement by a major rail operator, demonstrating sustained notability and brand value three years post-show. ^[3]

The combination of a 5th-place finish in a primary franchise (appearing in 90% of the season), The Thameslink National Marketing Campaign, and a featured role with the BBC Concert Orchestra satisfies WP:NENTERTAINER. Dismissing these verified, high-profile credits as "nothing" is an inaccurate assessment of the sourcing. Lady carrie (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure how we have such a low bar for notability when it comes to Drag Race contestants. Consider other reality shows, and even winners such as Candice Brown, Nancy Birtwhistle, Luke Anderson or Isabelle Warburton don't get their own articles despite having about the same (if not more) media coverage. --wooden superman 12:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you regarding the broader issue. There are certainly examples of alumni pages, taking a look at RuPaul's Drag Race UK series 4 such as Dakota Schiffer, that rely almost exclusively on their franchise appearance, suggesting the bar can indeed be quite low for this specific genre.

However, I believe the updates made to this article today distinguish Pixie Polite from those "show-only" examples. Unlike contestants whose coverage begins and ends with the broadcast, we have established a career timeline here (Drag Idol 2015, Royal Albert Hall 2022, Thameslink Campaign 2025, etc) that demonstrates verified activity outside the reality TV bubble. Even if the general bar for Drag Race is arguably too low, the independent career credits and sustained coverage in this specific case should place the subject safely above that threshold? Thanks Lady carrie (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Update per WP:HEY: I have now updated the article content to include the cited credits for Drag Idol (2015) and the Royal Albert Hall/BBC Concert Orchestra performance (2022), including some changes to the structure for chronological order. The article now accurately reflects the sustained notability evidence provided in this discussion. Lady carrie (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Drag Idol coverage is a bit dubious and a promotional source has been used, and their appearance at the Royal Albert Hall concert is mentioned in a single sentence: "Brighton's Pixie Polite doesn't (yet) have the high profile of their fellow queens here but largely outshone them with their sunny, upbeat manner and crowd-pleasing songs." More in depth sources are needed to establish notability. Neither of these performances are notable in their own right. --wooden superman 13:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Review: A CHRISTMAS GAIETY, Royal Albert Hall". Broadway World. 6 December 2022.
^ "The Royal Albert Hall to host festively camp party A Christmas Gaiety". Attitude. 2 November 2022.
^ Thameslink x Pixie Polite - See it, Slay it, Sorted! [Official Music Video]. Thameslink Official YouTube Channel. 30 June 2025.

Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race UK series 4: I don't see much notability outside that season of the show. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: no notability despite the enormous verbiage dropped in this AfD. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Radio (Cambridge and Ely)

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

Nothing in the article shows this station is notable. The sources, and my BEGFORE, show only routine coverage at the catalogue or passing mentions, failing WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Articles about radio stations which cover a single city and its surrounds are seen as notable enough for them to be included on Wikipedia. Therefore this article clearly passes this long established notability test. Rillington (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rillington So it's notable because WP:ITSNOTABLE? Recursion (computer science) is fun but not a very good argument in deletion. And there is no "long established notability test" - or, on contrary, it fails it, since WP:BCASTOUTCOMES clearly says: "Licensed broadcast radio and TV stations are generally deleted if they lack significant coverage in reliable sources." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of notable references. WP has better things to do than to chase down articles that have been contributed to hundreds of times over more than twenty years. Smb1001 (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smb1001 Which references are "notable"? Can you elaborate, in the spirit of WP:THREE? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article definitely needs bolstering. I've tried with references, but my access to the good ones all stops in the early 2000s (Cambridge paper and Broadcast). The problem with the sourcing is there's nothing really in-depth. For a radio station that had a 27-year run as an independent entity, that's a bit disconcerting. Like, there's enough there to put a barebones history in. But one or two in-depth articles would make me feel a lot better about this station having an article. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to very specifically reply to the above !votes from Rillington and Smb1001. Arguments like Rillington's used to carry the day on this encyclopedia. Then we had the 2021 NMEDIA RfC. It told us in no uncertain terms that our longtime direction was too lax—and I should know, I instigated the whole thing. If you haven't been around the topic area in the last few years, this is a mindset shift that can be alien to you. And the sourcing I have found is passable but just short of where I'd truly want to see it to make a keep !vote of my own. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Calder

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

Fails WP:GNG – town councillors are not considered notable in and of themselves. Was PRODed but that didn't take. • a frantic turtle 🐢 20:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • a frantic turtle 🐢 20:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - two primary sources are not enough for a BLP, and as a local government official, he's not automatically notable. A gentle reminder that the burden of proof is on the creator of a BLP. Ping me if you find and add two or three secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources and I cannot find more to bolster the page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Same as above, sourcing is insufficient. I considered Redirect to 2025 Durham County Council election, but the name is so common that I don't think it's useful. —🌊PacificDepths (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Abbot College

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

No citation in the article, and this school is not famous. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 16:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 16:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, United Kingdom, and England. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 17:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced for 17 years. Bearian (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As it happens I lived in Newton Abbot in the 1950s, and went there many times in later decades. I don't remember that this school was ever mentioned, and I doubt whether many people other than those who actually went to it were very conscious of its existence. Athel cb (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Interestingly, the name may predate that of the article because there are at least three wikinotable people who attended Newton Abbot College; John Hassall (illustrator), Arthur Couch, and Tom Bridges. These all have ODNB cites too, but their schooling would predate the creation of the school in 1904. I have seen one reference to it being Newton Abbot Proprietary College, and another from 1979, calling it the Newton Abbot College of Art.^[1] Art would fit the schooling of the three people I mentioned, but also that reference from 1979, states that the college was at the junction of Market Street and Highweeks Street, which is much closer to the railway station than the present location.The joy of all things (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's all a bit complicated because there were at least two schools with similar names and in neither case were the names constant over time. My father was educated at Newton Abbot Proprietary College (NOT the same as Newton Abbot College) between about 1915 and 1920. It was by then called Newton College and was a very minor public school. Later it closed and there was an approved school (I don't remember what it was called) on the same site, but that has also now gone. I used to walk past it every day when I went up to my own school at the top of Wolborough Hill (Wolborough Hill School, which has also gone, after a financial scandal around 2000) in the 1950s.The three people you mention were all a generation or so older than my father, and almost certainly were at Newton Abbot Proprietary College. In the case of Arthur Quiller Couch I think I have heard that from other sources. Athel cb (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of sources referring to it by its former names, Newton Abbot Grammar School and Knowles Hill School. This appears to have been somewhat misunderstood by those commenting above. It's only been called Newton Abbot College since 2008. It has no connection with the schools mentioned above and naturally it wouldn't be remembered by this name by those who lived there in the 1950s, when it was called Newton Abbot Grammar School! No citation in the article, and this school is not famous are not in any way valid deletion criteria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Necrothesp The point I was making above is that there must be different schools/colleges due to the inaccuracies in dates etc. If Knowles Hill, which is how the article was created back in 2008, changed its name to Newton Abbot College in 2008, then it cannot be the same college to the wikinotable people I mentioned. They have internal links that point to the Newton Abbot College page, so that is therefore incorrect. The article states it dates back to 1904, yet the three people mentioned must have attended well before then. I never asked for a deletion, I was just pointing out that there is a conflation between at least two different subjects. I was brought here by the unreferenced articles project; unfortunately, I know nothing of the area or of its history. The joy of all things (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lowther, Kenneth (1979). Dartmoor : Exeter, Newton Abbot, Totnes, Plymouth, Teignmouth, Dawlish. London: Ward Lock. p. 59. ISBN 0706357922.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Newton Abbot #Education where this is mentioned at target per WP:ATD, WP:CHEAP, and WP:BLAR. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CaptionHub

AfDs for this article:

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

failing WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Shah Of Nowhere ^talk! 01:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and United Kingdom. Shah Of Nowhere ^talk! 01:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious case of WP:PROMO. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disrupt Degrade & Devastate

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It fails WP:GNG and has no external links and reliable references. It is not notable. Anne-linni (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheInevitables (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is unsourced, and a WP:BEFORE search yielded no relevant results. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 05:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It lacks WP:SIGCOV. Aneirinn (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Smithers

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

Cannot find evidence of notability. The article uses a single source. Fails WP:GNG. TheInevitables (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. TheInevitables (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, with nearly 100 appearances in the Football League. WP:COMMONSENSE applies. A quick Google search shows plenty of sources, although nothing SIGCOV, but that's not surprising given he was active in the 1980s. Giant Snowman 19:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Ye, article needs fixing up, it's not really great to have that in main space at the moment. I would say draft unless fixed up. Regards.~~ Govvy (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found sources on him because I have access to offline newspapers. I will be working on the article in the upcoming days. I agree with GiantSnowman, soccer is a major sport in the United Kingdom with a large following, and there was a pre-internet era, when newspapers extensively covered the sport. Shotgun pete (talk) 4:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Return to Draft and wait for those "off-line" sources hereby invoked. Until such time, arguments that the subject's chosen sport is "very popular" or claims about numerous playing appearances are dead in the water. -The Gnome (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or return to draft?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have expanded the article and found some sources. I have found more sources and will continue to work on the article throughout the week. Shotgun pete (talk) 5:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep After updates per WP:BASIC. Govvy (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Dry

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

I am a little surprised that I have had to bring this to AfD (although redirect to Tik and Tok might be fine but I am checking their notability next) because this page lists numerous accomplishments but when I try to check them out I can't find them or they are documented with self-published sources. In addition the article was created by what appears to be a COI account (NOIR Ltd.) and has been consistently updated by the subject of the article himself. Sources I have found include this book mention, this shorter mention in a magazine, and here in a list of mimes in star wars. Moritoriko (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and United Kingdom. Moritoriko (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: appears to be significant roles in major notable films, meeting criteria in WP:NACTOR. Seems like the article just needs some more work. ~RAM (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would counter saying his roles in Star Wars are not significant (two random alien creatures) and his role of Monster in Xtro is more significant, but don't think it is enough for WP:NACTOR. Moritoriko (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Character actor that does fan festivals [2], is about all I can find for coverage. What's used in the article doesn't really help, there are sources but no in-line sources, and no online links, so I can't verify how useful they are. Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tik and Tok. I found these two newspaper articles where he is mentioned[3][4]. Regarding the books listed on the page, in the first, he was interviewed about Duran Duran, the second one mentions Tik and Tok but not him, and the last four, I assume based on the article text, contain some of his works. Criteria in WP:NACTOR just presume notability, which should be independently substantiated by sigcov, I found none that is directly relevant to his roles. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Not at all notable; lacks significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as an WP:ATD to Tik and Tok. This seems reasonable, and the target article should persist as the subject has multiple WP:GOODCHARTS to meet WP:MUSICBIO. ResonantDis_tortion 16:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note about MUSICBIO as I would have forgotten that :) Moritoriko (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England

England

Imperium Comms

Sandhill View Academy

Rupert Svendsen-Cook

University College London Polo Club

Christopher Elliott (composer and arranger)

Simon Duffy (songwriter)

Season (band)

London Buses route 44

Soccerway

Thameslink Southern Great Northern

Hertford Castle Weir

Tom Sharp

Eke Chukwu

Pixie Polite

Star Radio (Cambridge and Ely)

Aaron Calder

Newton Abbot College

CaptionHub

Disrupt Degrade & Devastate

Tim Smithers

Tim Dry

Mornflake

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also