Delete - no evidence of notability. One Daily Record source is decent - where is the rest? If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just from googling his name, there are at least five stories online which focus on him (so not mentions in general match reports or counting any of the stories from his 60-yard goal). The Ayrshire Post have also published at least six stories about him specifically, I don't know how many of these are online though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entire content of this page is already written in Peacemaker season 1. Almost every section of "Production" talks about details that involve the entire season and not specifically the first episode of it. Even the "Critical reception" section talks about the first three episode and not of this episode individually. If we don't want to cancel this page, I think that we could easily merge some information (like the Critical reception) into Peacemaker season 1. But I don't think that this first episode is independently notable. Redjedi23 (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The only reference given in the article is non-independent, as it was written by someone who is described as the "commander" of the confraternity. There are also a few external links (including in the text), none of which establish notability of the subject either. toweli (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rode in the highest possible tier of not only the British league (equivalent of football's premier league) but also the Swedish league. Pyeongchang (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are 1, 2. Stats page N. 3. SPS stats page N. 4. Team site N. 5. 2-4 non-quote sentences with zero encyclopedic secondary coverage (e.g. "But the Eastbourne Eagles reserve hopes...") N. 6. Trivial mention in transactional news N. 7. Interview with barely one sentence of secondary background info N. 8. Namedrop in transactional news N. 9. Team site N. JoelleJay (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Accessing the new sources will be helpful in reaching a clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!09:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete: First and last of sources brought up are very short pieces merely stating that he will participate in some competition or other, so not WP:SIGCOV. The two others are paywalled, so I can't say much about those and they may prove me wrong. On my side, didn't find anything better than name drops. Regarding the possible WP:NMOTORSPORT C4, the U21 championship seems far from national importance, given it has very little coverage and is not even mentioned in Speedway in Sweden. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LibStar: Just a minor note that the statement that Gunnar Malmqvist has no third-party sources isn't entirely correct – while I haven't gone through all the others to assess them I've added at least one newspaper article myself a couple of weeks ago. /Julle (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, lacking significant coverage. The only info about the album that concretely exists is that it was announced for an April 8 release date, which didn't happen. Skyshiftertalk12:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a television show, completely unsourced for the purposes of establishing that it would pass WP:TVSHOW. As at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stop, Look, & Listen (same creator), this was sandboxed in draftspace for lack of referencing and then almost immediately unsandboxed by the creator again without any effort to address the reasons why it got sandboxed in the first place. Obviously no prejudice against recreation if somebody can find proper reliable source coverage about it to establish that it would pass inclusion criteria, but television shows are not entitled to keep unsourced articles. Bearcat (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, appears to fail WP:NTELEVISION and WP:GNG. Searching online the only coverage I could find in reliable secondary sources was passing mentions: [5], [6], [7]. Wikishovel (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable educational institution. No independent, RS could be found that contain significant coverage of it. I am only able to find routine coverage with many passing mentions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is based on two sources: an article in a newspaper: Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka) and an article on a magazine called Lanka Woman, which is published by Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. No evidence has been produced for the claim that the newspaper and magazine "lack any independent editorial oversight". Presumably more sources could be found in native-language publications in Ceylon.-- Toddy1(talk)12:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article in Lanka Woman, is entirely based on an interview with Wijesinghe (which is a primary source). There is no indication that the interviewer or the publisher has undertaken any fact checking to ascertain whether Wijesinghe's statements are correct. Dan arndt (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Logic is failed because this is in large part a list of places that LATAM Brasil wasn't regularly flying to in January 2024, as is indicated by many of them being listed as "terminated"/seasonal or as not being operated by LATAM Brazil. The destinations flown to by LATAM Brasil are already adequately summarised in LATAM Airlines Brasil#Destinations, and their historical development is already discussed at LATAM Airlines Brasil#History, meaning this page is redundant. Wikipedia is not the place to seek to publish original historical research about where Airlines used to fly.
WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.
WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is largely unsourced, and has been since at least 2015, but the part that is sourced is sourced to the company website, enthusiast blogs like Routesonline, or to run-of-the-mill articles based on company press-releases and statements and trade-press coverage. Additionally, many of the links are 404, making them fail verifiability. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present.
Keep/merge It continues to be false that this falls under NOTCATLOGUE, as this is not used as a resource for conducting business. The mere fact that people can be informed about the company's operations does not make it a business resource, nor are products and services broadly forbidden. A basic list of two countries and four continents is not a replacement of the information. The article needs more sources, but there is adequate coverage of the airline's operations to include its destinations here or in the main article. A link being dead does not mean the fact itself is impossible to verify or the whole article must be deleted. Listing former destination is not indiscrimination, but that could call for modifications rather than complete deletion. Reywas92Talk13:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of the arguments from the previous discussion about deleting this list still apply (I can’t seem to track down the archive entry for that deletion discussion, despite having reread it least week? Now, the same search brings me to this current discussion. I think the previous one was in 2017). My summary of that and past talk page discussions:
This list is far more useful than a category or set of categories because it has more information than categories can include.
This list can be sorted in multiple ways (primary notability, age, continent or country). From a geology perspective, sorting by time period is often more important/interesting than sorting by region. Some people sort by notability or use the tags to find types of sites. If we split it up, we have to maintain lists or categories for all of combinations of sorts and sub-sorts. (And then we get to argue about where to put the divisions between time periods in the past couple million years).
We have, in fact, made a solid attempt at defining a fossil site. The reason entire formations are listed is because some formations outcrop at many sites in a general region and listing every outcrop is neither feasible nor particularly useful. This has been discussed in the Talk at some length and is mentioned in the list intro. Ideally such formations would each have a listed type locality or primary site, but no one has yet done the research to add those to every previously listed formation. (Sometimes these localities are already in the primary article for a formation, but no one has yet added them here.)
If we actually apply the inclusion criteria discussed in Talk to delete list entries (rather than just to new additions) the list will get tidier. Deleting the list itself would remove a valuable and popular navigational tool.
Comment: Only the first 2 sentences are about Fenercell; the remainder is about Avea (now part of Türk Telekom) and a broad discussion about mobile networks in Türkiye. In that state, it would have been better titled as Avea. Or reduced to a 2 sentence stub on Fenercell, which would sit with the redirect on the tr.wiki article. Regarding the "Fenercell" branding, that uses other providers such as A1 Telekom Austria Group elsewhere [8]. AllyD (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to fail WP:NEVENTS due to lack of WP:PERSISTENCE coverage and a lack of WP:LASTING impact. The coverage seems routine and since WP is not a newspaper, we shouldn't create articles on every scam just because it has been reported in WP:109PAPERS. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are both user-generated, according to the small print at the bottom of both articles. This was draftified for this reason but not corrected. I am unable to find good sources for this breed, but there might well be reliable Chinese or other sources of course. Without those, this should be deleted. Fram (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it will be difficult to find information as this is a rare and young independent breed of dog.
Originated in the 20th century, it is a new dog breed based on the West German Shepherd Dog, mixed with the Belgian Tervuren and the Chinese wolf. Wtf35861887 (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree the three sources are basically WP:BLOG according to the notices at the foot of the article. I've done some searches in Chinese, and there's definitely some web mention of them but am not finding much of quality This article is pretty much pushing a press release but gives a sense of the scale of the breed:
On April 16, the China Animal Husbandry Beacon's "Muhuo Tongming Cup" National First Spring Expo of Chinese Shepherd Dogs was held in Xinmin City. The Expo brought together more than 300 excellent Chinese shepherd dogs in China, with an estimated total value of more than 100 million yuan. This Expo aims to showcase the excellent dog breeds bred by my country, promote the establishment of breeding standards for Chinese shepherd dogs, and promote Chinese shepherd dogs to the international stage.
According to the organizers, all kennels that breed Chinese shepherd dogs nationwide came to the Expo. Among them, the highest value Chinese shepherd dog has a market value of 9 million yuan. It is understood that Chinese shepherd dogs are one of the few native guardian dog breeds in China that have been preserved to this day. They are gentle, brave and vigilant, have very strong guarding instincts, are extremely loyal to their territory and owners, can hold their ground and protect their homes without hesitation in critical moments. Stable characteristics and unique personality have made them a unique dog breed in China.
Far as I can tell, no articles support having been bred "since the 20th century", but it's not a very bold claim. Happy to reconsider my vote if further sources emerge. Oblivy (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This dog breed was developed by dog enthusiasts and the Chinese military, but it was mainly carried out by the Chinese military. The Chinese military dog breeding program began in the 20th century, and this dog breed was the first to be bred under the program. Wtf35861887 (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Brands Hatch Racing was the circuit's team and was run by John Webb while he was chief executive of Brands Hatch. There are a few other races which aren't mentioned in the existing article. This can be better covered on the circuit's article. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Logic is failed because this is a largely a list of places that Czech Airlines wasn't flying to in February 2024, as is indicated by the overwhelming majority of them being listed as "terminated". Czech Airlines only flew to four destinations in February 2024, all of which are already mentioned on the Czech Airlines page, making this page redundant. Anyone asserting that these "terminated" destinations are of historical interest needs to show historical sourcing for that (i.e., historical journal, history book etc.) - Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own historical research about where an airline used to fly.
WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.
WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is largely sourced to old timetables published by the airline (e.g., this one), or to the company website, or to run-of-the-mill articles based on company press-releases and statements and trade-press coverage or local-news failing WP:AUD. Additionally, many of the links are 404, making them fail verifiability. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present nor could I find any. FOARP (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge It continues to be false that this falls under NOTCATLOGUE, as this is not used as a resource for conducting business, particularly if they're about to cease conducting business! The mere fact that people can be informed about the company's operations does not make it a business resource, nor are products and services broadly forbidden. A basic list of two countries and four continents is not a replacement of the information. The article needs more sources, but there is adequate coverage of the airline's operations to include its destinations here or in the main article. A link being dead does not mean the fact itself is impossible to verify or the whole article must be deleted. Listing former destination is not indiscrimination, but that could call for modifications rather than complete deletion. Reywas92Talk13:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This airline literally only flew to four destinations "As of February 2024". What is the point of listing places it possibly used to fly to at some point, but didn't fly to in Feb 2024, based on original research in primary sources? If the answer is "because of historical importance", then where are the historians covering this topic? PS - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Malta destinations which recently closed as delete, which also covered an airline whose destinations were all "terminated", and where you made substantially the same arguments. FOARP (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article subject does not show up in any online searches except for YouTube, social media, and one website newtimes.co.rw. My previous edit was to remove almost all of the article sources (almost all pointing to New Times articles), which were simply puff pieces and did not factually support anything in the article. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted as it documents a historical event in New Zealand history. The failure of New Zealand security forces to protect an event with a head of state was national news and prompted discussions between New Zealand and the UK around security arrangements. Ashok.fernandez (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this person isn't notable enough for a biographical article. As for the incident itself, I can only find 2 articles about it, which depict it as a failed gatecrashing attempt with minor repercussions. It seems there are few viable sources to support the claim it was a historical event, or really much of anything at all. Melonbob (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep here from the article creator so I don't think a Soft Deletion is possible. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a vanity page for a musician. While his body of work is extensive, I cannot find any substantial online coverage of him to fulfill WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. The second reference states that he has topped the UK music charts twice, but this appears to be a fanzine of questionable reliability and I can't find any mention of him at the official chart website.~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've searched the official charts database, and I agree with the nominator, I am unable to find evidence of charting (though potentially it could be so far back in time to not be available online), including under his alternate name. However - there is a WP:RSMUSIC Allmusic staff bio available, which is both non-trivial coverage and confirms gold-certification. Potentially with more verification and coverage this may be a keep. ResonantDistortion13:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HELLO ALL - I am the ARTIST - COMPOSER/recording artist. This page looks as though it was originally created by fans. However I do ask it is NOT deleted WHY >> I am an international award winning artist (instrumental music) 6 gold disc, 1 platinumn and a life achievement award, at least 4 million fans international. I also own a record label managing other artists. A 33yr career. My own radio show also. UK based. Numerous hits. Career is still ongoing. Instrumental music doesnt tend to be found in charts or have the hype of pop music so whilst I am not as trackable you will find me all over itunes, spotify, Amazon, Facebook, youtube, google, as one of the most famous artists of my genre. Medwyngoodall (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HELLO ALL - I am the ARTIST - COMPOSER/recording artist. This page looks as though it was originally created by fans. However I do ask it is NOT deleted WHY >> I am an international award winning artist (instrumental music) 6 gold disc, 1 platinumn and a life achievement award, at least 4 million fans international. I also own a record label managing other artists. A 33yr career. My own radio show also. UK based. Numerous hits. Career is still ongoing. Instrumental music doesnt tend to be found in charts or have the hype of pop music so whilst I am not as trackable you will find me all over itunes, spotify, Amazon, Facebook, youtube, google, as one of the most famous artists of my genre Medwyngoodall (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are the notability guidelines Wikipedia follows for keeping articles on musicians: WP:MUSICBIO. We need reliable sources (WP:RS) to show the article subject meets the criteria. At present it's unlikely there are enough sources, so if you can provide such references that would significantly help. (Note I have been unable to verify the Gold certifications via the British Phonographic Industry website, so help on that would also be useful). ResonantDistortion07:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more participation here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WP:NASTRO we presume notability because it was discovered before 1850 but a careful investigation may show that it is not notable. Even if we discover sufficient references to meet our notability critera we may go on to decide there should not be an article on this galaxy. I hope that is completely clear! Thincat (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the references in this article are catalog entries. It has had a couple of supernovae, but those are also not interesting beyond their catalog entries. Parejkoj (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Parejkoj. The only coverage is from large catalogues and the supernova databases. There is no significant commentary on the galaxy from reliable sources. --C messier (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Total WP:SYNTH/WP:OR - unverifiable (book ISBNs all fail lookup, as do the cited DOIs). Sent to draft, returned by author unchanged other than to remove many of the suspect ISBNs. BTW the book titles themselves fail book search - give the first cited source, "Genealogies of Eastern Arabia: Tracing the Lineages" a try... WP:NOTGENEALOGY very much applies but even if it didn't, this content is dubious and misleading (but also irrelevant) at best. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is with a heavy heart that I propose deletion of this page.
The reason is simple: the scope of this article is untenable. When this page was originally created in 2014, it attempted to provide socio-historical background information for readers of the article 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which covered then ongoing protests in particular regions of that country. It primarily served as a sub-article of 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, because that article had got too long. The scope of the article at the time of its creation was a product of that time, and the limited sources that were then available. As the conflict evolved, it became apparent that the article was no longer functioning, leading to a previous deletion discussion in 2022. The result of that discussion was 'keep', despite acknowledgement of concerns about the article's content, including potential WP:OR analysis of primary sources.
All of the existing content has been systematically deleted from the article this year, and the article moved and rescoped. Now, this article purports to provide the historical background to the multi-faceted geopolitical conflict that is the Russo-Ukrainian War, and yet completely fails to do so. In fact, it is unlikely that it will ever be able to do so, because its scope is too broad, with much of the relevant content provided in other articles, such as Russo-Ukrainian War. At present, it seems to be nothing more than a WP:COATRACK for miscellaneous history, without any clear narrative or connection to the actual topic it purports to describe: no link is established between the article contents and the war that began in 2014.
Is the whole history of Ukraine within the scope of this article? The whole history of Russia? These could both legitimately claimed to be 'historical background' to the current conflict, and there may be reliable sources that establish such a reality. However, an article with such a scope could never actually function on Wikipedia as anything other than a WP:POVFORK of other better articles on this subject, such as Russia–Ukraine relations. Unfortunately, I think my dear friend Iryna, ever the wisest, has been proven correct by the test of time. She warned me and others that this article would become 'the biggest coatrack Wikipedia has ever seen', and that there was little hope in creating anything of value to the reader with an article scope this broad. Ah, the naivety of youth. If only I had listened...
Fundamentally, the deletion of the existing article content without community consensus is concerning from a procedural point of view. However, I agree in principle that the removed content no longer has an encyclopaedic purpose. For this reason, I suggest this article be deleted. 'Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War' may be a notable concept, though I note that no other war covered on Wikipedia has a similar article. I caution, as Iryna did so many years ago, that any such article is liable to become a WP:COATRACK. However, even if such an article is deemed viable for creation, in content, concept and scope, it would still be fundamentally different from the article the existed for ten years from 2014, and therefore I believe 'Blow it up and start over' applies. I propose a clean start. Who is with me? RGloucester — ☎05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is based on books by highly renowned historians, e.g. Andreas Kappeler and Serhii Plokhy. Those books were written explicitly to provide the historical background of that war. I don't see any of our guidelines supporting deletion. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a poorly written essay that heavily focuses on the Old Rus' question, while only briefly mentioning the other historical contexts of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. It almost completely omits the modern history of both countries. Additionally, some statements are of questionable neutrality. For example: 'The legal and bureaucratic traditions of Kievan Rus' were inherited by Lithuania, but not by Muscovy,' which, as far as I know, has no basis in historical fact.Marcelus (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Fails WP:BIO. Sources 4-6 are primary, his "employer". I don't regard having a Order of Australia, or previous position as President of the Assembly, as conferring inherent notability. A search for sources yielded namesakes. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article clearly needs to be cleaned up by someone who knows more about the sources than I do, but it seems to me that that this article should be kept. Bduke (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect? I had a look at the one link 11v11 [9] and it said FIFA World Cup Asia group 4, in 1980 December, and one game played in 1981 January all in the same tournament, so there maybe a redirect available for his name. Was trying to work it out for a possible redirect. If not guess it's a delete. Govvy (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable surname (only one notable individual with this surname, who probably died 1800 years ago and who has no page on enwiki); material can be merged into Ji (surname). We don't need so many articles with Chinese disambiguators. Yinweiaiqing (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely unsourced and reads like an essay. The topic itself does not appear sufficiently notable for its own article. While a merge has been suggested in edit histories, doing so would require the introduction of unsourced and essay-like material into an otherwise non-problematic page. Additionally, a section to this effect already exists at Jan Smuts. The content of the article is not suitable for any page and thus should be deleted. Garsh (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything here worth merging, since Folk etymologies of Chinese surnames and Surnames in Chinese mythology are both redlinks. I don't have access to any complete biographical dictionaries of Chinese historical figures anymore, but it's telling that the Kangxi entry for 理 as a surname lists only the single individual 理徵, who seems to have been invented or repurposed to make sense of a bit of the Yellow Emperor myth where somehow he was the ultimate progenitor of a dozen different surnames.The phenomenon of earlyish Chinese families backdating their surnames to mythological and legendary figures to bolster their own reputations — that's an interesting subject and probably deserves better coverage than we currently give it, but just uncritically repeating myths and folk etymologies without contextualising them as such is not what we should be doing here. I'm landing at delete, but also copypaste sourcing to zh:理姓 (unsourced). Folly Mox (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not provide in depth coverage of the event, which does not appear notable. Restoration fine as a SOFT delete (courtesy @Graeme Bartlett:) and no objection to draft space as requester noted so that I can make improvements as more references become available. but it does not appear sufficient sourcing currently exists. StarMississippi01:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources given are either PR, trivial mentions, or unrelated to the subject of the article. Not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources elsewhere, either. No evidence of notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Original research; none of the sources support that these are the British ski jumping records, just that the listed people made jumps of this length at some point. No sources found, and no similar lists for other countries to suggest sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A certain amount of these speedway AFDs seem somewhat premature, coming in rapid succession. Where are you doing your WP:BEFORE? Please don't answer Google, I'd like to direct the attention here. Geschichte (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]